»r-Lj: 
 
 }^^ 
 
 ;vA. 
 
 
 
 m^;m >r-y 
 
 ^-^■^ 
 
 
 
 r^^i 
 
 4J-- 
 
 '^'ifk \ 
 
'' .i 
 
 !£k s o3 1^ <£^ i:^. "^s- 
 
 OF TUK 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 SAMUEL AGNEW, 
 
 OF PHILADELPHIA, PA 
 
 BX 5950 .R523 1827 c.l 
 Rice, John Holt, 1771-1831. 
 Review of the "Doctrines of 
 the church vindicated from 
 
>-. 
 
REVIEW 
 
 "SOOTRXNES OF THE CBUHCB 
 
 "VINDICATED FROM THE MISREPRESENTATIONS OF' 
 
 "DU. JOHX RICE;' 
 
 'AND THE INTEGRITY OF REVEALED RELIGION DEFENDED AGAINST 
 THE 'NO COMMENT PRINCIPLE' OF PROMISCUOUS BrBLE SOCIE- 
 TIES: BY THE RIGHT REV'd JOHN S. RAVENSCROKT, D.D. 
 BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF NORTH-CAROLINA." 
 
 ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE 
 
 RICHMOND, VA. 
 
 PRINTED AT THE FRANKLIW PRESS. 
 
 iBsr. 
 

 ^'^^^^fki^^^' 
 
 ^J^:<^ 
 
 NOTICE. 
 
 The following sheets were first printed in numbers in the Literary and 
 Bvangfelical Magazine. 
 
 They were composed in the odd ends and corners of time saved from a 
 most laborious employment. 
 
 They wtre printed at a distance from the residence of the writer, so that 
 he had no opportunity of reading the proofs. 
 
 The work grew on the author's hands much beyond his expectation or 
 intent'on. 
 
 This statement will account for the repetitions which occasionally appear 
 in the work; for tlie imperfections of style ; the numerous typographical 
 inaccuracies which deform it ; and for the omission of some topics, the dis- 
 cussion of which was promised. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 5, line 13 from bottom erase tlie 
 commas after is and doubt. 
 22, line 5 from boUom, for ! in- 
 sert a period. 
 
 33, line 10, read Being divinely 
 
 inspired, &c. 
 ib. line 22, after error insert only. 
 
 34, line 1, after dust insert : in- 
 
 stead of , 
 42, line 12 from bottom for, the 
 
 same read one. 
 44, line 5 from bottom, insert a 
 
 comma after society. 
 47, line 3, for Lyn. read Syn, 
 50, line 3 from bottom for was 
 
 read is. 
 53, lines 32 and 33, for right read 
 rite. Ceremony is a bettt-r word. 
 67, line 21, for -work read it. 
 
 73, line 20, for began read begun. 
 
 74, line 8 from botton^, for sug- 
 
 gested read suggestion. 
 77, lines 12 and 2 from bottom, 
 for ordinary read ordaining, 
 ib. Note 3d line, for angletised 
 read anglicised. 
 
 89, line 16, for a church, read the 
 
 church. 
 
 90, line 16, for Griesback read 
 
 Griesbach. 
 
 102, line 11 from bottom, for Co. 
 
 reirread Coteler 
 
 103, line 16, for by read of. 
 
 ib. line 19, for bishops — presby. 
 ters, read bishop-presbyters. 
 107, line 20, for came, read come. 
 Ill, line 7,i'orp(iris, rend pares, 
 ib. line 14, after heathenism insert : 
 113, line 26, for dispositionea dom- 
 inicm, read dispositionis dominicx. 
 
 Page llS.lIne 8 from bottom, fop Jona, 
 rf-ad lona, 
 118, line \5,i[nr Jlrdan,rea,A Aidan. 
 122, line 17 fn.m bottom, put a 
 comma after 4,instead of a period. 
 126, line 18, for business read 
 
 bishops. 
 128, line 26.for Redtey read Ridley. 
 
 138, line 10 from bottom, for de- 
 riling read derives. 
 
 139, line ll.after B^ble^nser^. even, 
 
 145, line 1, for These read There. 
 
 146, line 21, for an additional rea' 
 son, read a reason additional , 
 
 147, line 18 from bottom, for he, 
 redd lie. 
 
 165, line 10, for ilia lachryma, read 
 
 illm lachrymx. 
 167, line 9, insert a mark of quota- 
 tion after death, 
 180, line 5, for socfarum read 5q?ic- 
 tarum. 
 ib. line 9, msert ? after church, 
 ib. line 17, insert a mark of quo- 
 tation after approbations. 
 
 187, line 21 from bottom, for slate 
 read statement. 
 
 ib. line 6 do. do. for Lirensia read 
 Lirinensis, 
 
 188, line 13 do. do. for undeter. 
 mined read indeterminate, 
 
 189, line 8, for on read or. 
 191, line 2 from bottom, aS{tr point 
 
 insert : 
 J*, line 1 from bottom, after «/c- 
 
 cision, place a comma, 
 194, line 20, for charges read 
 
 changes. 
 203, line 14 from bottom, for The 
 naked, read When the naked, S^c. 
 

 OF 
 
 The Doctrines of ike Church Vindicated, d^c. 
 
 This is probably the most polemic title page that has been print- 
 ed for the last hundred years. We certainly have seen nothing 
 like it ip modern times. As critics, we are obliged to say that it is 
 in very bad taste ; and as Christians, we cannot but add, that it 
 breathes a bad spirit. Justice, too, compels us to remark, that the 
 whole work is of a piece with the title. We have never, in all our 
 reading, seen an example of more perfect conformity to the critical 
 rule of Horace, than has been given by this author ; 
 
 Servetur ad imum 
 
 Qiialis ab incoepto processerit, et sibi constet. 
 
 It is indeed a rare instance of perfect consistency ; the more to 
 be admired, because the whole work is at variance with the spirit 
 which ought to govern a christian polemic, and possesses a charac- 
 ter of mind and heart which ought not to be impressed on any thing 
 by a bishop of the church. Evidently the writer was angry. And 
 when we first glanced at the title page, we could not help exclaim- 
 ing " Ira, brevis furor est!''' But on looking through the book, and 
 perceiving the same spirit pervading the whole, it occurred to us, 
 and the thought really excited compassion, that the paroxysm must 
 have continued a surprising length of time — through the writing and 
 printing of one hundred and sixty-six octavo pages ! The book puts 
 us in mind of a dinner made by a man of foreign garb and accent, by 
 whom it was our fortune to sit not long ago at table, on board a steam- 
 boat. He first called for fish, and sprinkled on it at least two tea- 
 spoonfuls of Cayenne pepper ! After eating this, he asked for roast 
 beef, and seasoned his slice with an equal quantity of Cayenne pep- 
 per 1 ! He then took sallad, and it was Cayenne pepper again ! ! ! 
 So of this book; but with this difference ; the traveller employed 
 the pepper for his own use ; but this fiery preparation is made for 
 us. VVe, however, must beg to be excused. We certainly "will 
 take none of it !" And we would have our readers to understand 
 that by a process, now through long use familiar, we can as critics, 
 separate from a work every thing personally offensive, and touch 
 only on that which concerns the public. We have thrown bishop 
 R's work into our alembic, and shall in due time take out all the 
 parts which it is important others should " handle and taste," and 
 serve them up in a style, which we fondly hope every body will ap- 
 prove. 
 
 We have made these remtirks for the purpose of shewing that we 
 gre in perfect good humour, and so shall continue during the whole 
 of this process. If others forget themselves, it is not for us to fol- 
 1 
 
4 Review of Bishop RavenscroJt*s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 low their example. We know too well both the pleasure and ad- 
 vantage of keeping cool, to allow ourselves to grow warm. 
 
 The bishop, however, has placed us in a delicate situation. His 
 intemperate language merits rebuke. He has offended the public 
 taste, and has set an example of conducting religious controversy, 
 which ought not to be imitated. The critics are bound to set him 
 up as a wiirningfor others. But should we do this with the best 
 temper in the world, prejudiced men of all sorts, will cry out against 
 us, as cherishing personal resentments ; and many will be glad of 
 the opportunity of saying " See how these Theologians hate one 
 another." — Now we hate nobody ; we are angry with nobody ; and 
 we are very desirous that none may commit sm by saying of us what 
 is not true. We fully purpose, therefore, as far as possible, to shun 
 even the appearance of evil. Yet we earnestly wish to mak^ bish- 
 op R. feel that he ought to have been more " courteous," more 
 urbane and gentle. 
 
 For this purpose we will ask him to recal to recollection the lan- 
 guage which be has applied to us, and then make the following sup- 
 positions : 1. That he and his Reviewer, instead of being clergy- 
 men, were members of Congress, or officers of government, who pro- 
 fess to be regulated by that wretched system called the code of 
 honour ; what would men of the same stamp say that the Reviewer 
 must do, or be forever disgraced ? 2. Let it be supposed that the 
 Bishop and the Reviewer were plain citizens, who submit to the 
 laws, and seek redress of their wrongs from the justice of their 
 country ; how could the Reviewer do any thing but vindicate his 
 character in a civil court ? Yet both Bishop and Reviewer are 
 clergymen, and recourse to such measures would cover them with 
 everlasting reproach : both are obliged to adopt the maxim of the 
 admirable Cowper, expressed in the following lines, 
 
 A pious, sensible and well-bred man, 
 //'/// not insult me, and no other can. 
 
 The Right Rev. Dr Ravenscroft knows this ; and, therefore, we 
 are sorry to have to say, he ought not to employ language, which, 
 according to common usage, is regarded as insulting and abusive. 
 
 If these remarks are not sufficient for the purposes of salutary 
 reproof, we must refer to the scriptures. And we do here most ear- 
 nestly entreat the bishop to compare the terms whicii he has per- 
 mitted himself to use in reference to his Revievper, with the char- 
 acter which a bishop ought to sustain, and the conduct he ought to 
 pursue, according to the judgment ofthe Apostle Paul. " A bishop 
 then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober,^ 
 of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach, ?iot given to 
 wine,'\ no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient, not a 
 brawler, not covetous, one that ruleth well his own house, having 
 his children in subjection with all gravity : (for if a man know not 
 
 ZCO^pQV the word here used, means one who has all the thoughts, 
 desires and passions well regulated and restrained. 
 
 T Ttapoivog, has b«en rendered, ready to quarrel and ofTer wrong, as 
 one m wine. ♦ 
 
Review ofBishni) Ravenscroft^s Vindication and Defence. 5 
 
 how to rnle his own house, how shall he take care of the church 
 of God ?) not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into 
 the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must have a good re- 
 port of them that are without ; lest he fall into re{)roach and the 
 snare of the devil." 1 Tim. iii, 2 — 7. Again the same holy Apos- 
 tle says, " And the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be 
 gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing 
 (hose that oppose themselves.'" 2 Tim. ii, 24, 25. Hear, also, what 
 he saith in the epistle to Titus, " for this cause left 1 thee in Crete, 
 that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and or- 
 dain ELDERS in every city, as I appointed thee ; if any be blameless, 
 the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of 
 riot or unruly : for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of 
 God ; not self-'jailled, not soo7i angry, not given to wine, no striker, 
 not given to tiUhy lucre, &c." Tit. i, 5 — 7. 
 
 We are as far as possible from blaming any one for earnestly 
 contending for what he believes to be the faith and order of the 
 gospel. On the contrary, if he fails to do this, he fails in his duty. 
 But it is mournful to see one, who is < lothed with the sacred name 
 of Christ's ambassador, and raised to an exalted station in the church 
 forgetting the dignity of his high calling, the proprieties of his of- 
 fice, the gentleness of spirit which peculiarly becomes him ; and 
 using reproachful epithets, uttering bitter words, and displaying 
 violent passion. The public good requires that he should be told 
 of his fault, frankly yet mildly; and warned not to repeat it. If 
 bishop R. had been a Presbyterian, there would be much less oc- 
 casion for our taking this trouble ; because we do conscientiously 
 believe, that such a book as he has written would have called forth 
 admonitions from his Presbytery, fully sufficient for all salutary 
 purposes. 
 
 So far in discharge of our duty to the public — One word as to 
 the personal concerns of the Reviewer. Bishop Ravenscroft says 
 of himself " You have mistaken your man." He might have saved 
 himself the trouble of saying this ; we were fully convinced of it, 
 before he told us. Formerly, with a sincerity, which obtained no 
 credit from all those who were incapable of entering into our feelings , 
 we expressed a warm fraternal affection for him as a christian and 
 a minister. This brotherly love was rejected with a scorn and de- 
 rision, which, it is, no doubt, thought become a high churchman. 
 We know that, commonly, despised love turns to hatred. But we 
 do most solemnly protest that it is not so with us. The only eflfects 
 of the conviction that we had mistaken our man were, tirst, the sur- 
 prise natural to all on the occurrence of an unexpected event ; 
 then pity ; and finally sorrow. We do sincerely pity any man in 
 this world, who easily gets narm, and has a great capacity for re- 
 taining heat. He cannot be happy. We are sorry, when the high 
 passions and intemperate language of a christian minister injure the 
 cause of religion. — It is very probable that this modification of our af- 
 fection will be rejected with higher scorn than ever. We cannot help 
 it — the result will be, that our pity will be rendered the more pro- 
 found, our sorrow the more pungent. As far as experience goes.. 
 
e Rcxicw of Bishop Ravcuscroft*s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 we are u arronted too in saying that it will cause us much more fre- 
 quently than ever, in our secret uddresses to the throne of grace, 
 to think of a prayer which cannot but be familiar to bishop Ravens- 
 croft. This prayer so exactly expresses our feelings on the pre- 
 sent occasion that we must beg leave to quote it. " Almighty and 
 everlasting God, from whom conieth every good and perfect gift, 
 send down upon our bishops and other clergy, and upon the con- 
 gregiitions committed to their charge, the healthful spirit of thy 
 grace ; and that they may truly please thee, pour upon them the 
 continual dew of thy blessing : Grant this, O Lord, for the honour 
 of our Advocate and Mediator Jesus Christ. Amen." — And here 
 the Reviewer ventures to say, but with no boastful spirit, to bishop 
 R. and all who think with him, " You have mistaken your man" — 
 As far as he is personally concerned, it is his policy to live down 
 reproaches. No bitterness of language will provoke him to returu 
 railing for railing : by the grace of God nothing Shall prevent him 
 from acknowledging as brethren ail who love the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 cherishing towards them fraternal afleclion, and rejoicing in their 
 gifts and graces. No man shall deprive him of the pleasure he 
 enjoys while praying for the blessing of God on them and their la- 
 bours, and entertaining the hope that he will enjoy everlasting 
 communion with them in a better world. The Reviewer, on de- 
 liberate examination, has his preferences in regard to religious 
 connexions. He might have been an Episcopalian ; he was free 
 to choose his denomination. One thing which had no small influ- 
 ence in determining him to be a Presbyterian was, the following 
 passages in their book called " The Confession of Faith." 
 
 " All saints that are united to Jesus Christ their head, by his 
 Spirit and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, suffer- 
 ings, death, resurrection and glory : and, being united to one another 
 in love, they have communion in each others gifts and graces, and are 
 obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do 
 conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and the outward 
 man." — " Saints by profession, are bound to maintain a holy fell ore - 
 ship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such 
 other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification ; as also 
 in relieving each other in outward things according to their several 
 abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God aff'ereth oppor- 
 tunity, is to be extended to all those, who in every place call upon the 
 name of the Lord Jesus. ^'' Again ; the Presbyterian church has so- 
 lemnly and publicly declared their belief " thai there are truths 
 and forms with respect to which men of good ch ir.irtfrs and prin- 
 ciples may diiler : and in all these they think it the duty, both of 
 private christians and societies, to exercise mutual forbearance to- 
 wards each other." Here is a truly liberal, that is a truly chris- 
 tian spirit. The Reviewer in his various inquiries sougiit in vain 
 for such maxims in the acknowledged standards of any other de- 
 nomination : and this, in part, was the reason why he preferred the 
 Presbyterian Church to all others. His purpose is to act consist- 
 ently with this ground of preference. But in doing this, it will 
 always be his duty to oppose those arrogant claims, and exclusive 
 
Hevicw of Bishop RavtnscroJVs Vindication and Defence. 7 
 * 
 pretension!?, which, in pursuit of a hopeless uniformity, breakup 
 t!ie fellonship of Christians, prevent their co-operation, and place 
 stumbling blocks in the vvay of others. 
 
 The Heviewer is ashamed of having said thus much of himself. 
 But he is now done, lie wishes tliat liis real design, and the true 
 objects of the present controversy may be clearly understood. 
 And for this purpose he feels it to be his duty to add to what has 
 been already said, a iew historical remarks ; which will not only 
 serve the present occasion, but also stand in place of an answer to 
 many causeless reflections thrown out by the right reverend authoi- 
 in the book before us. 
 
 It is well known that while Virginia was a British Colony, the 
 Church of England w;is by law estahlished among us. We do not 
 blame the present Episcopal Church for the conduct of the estab- 
 lishment ; but we see no reason why historical trulh should be 
 concealed out of tenderness to our contemporaries. The over- 
 bearing and monopolizing spirit of all establishments was manifested 
 in this colony. It will always be so, when interests, which ought to 
 be purely spiritual, receive a secular character. The clergy were 
 generally worldly men. For the most part they v/ere foreign ad- 
 venturers, whose language to their patrons in England was, " Put 
 me, I pray thee, into one of the priest's offices, that I may eat a 
 piece of bread." Bui when they came here and got into fat livings, 
 they ate and drank, hunted and played with the gentry of the coun- 
 try ; ihey married the people, christened thejr children, and buried 
 the dead : but the peculiar doctrines of the gospel were not preach- 
 ed, and by many among them were not believed. We with plea- 
 sure admit that there were honuurable exceptions, but we give the 
 general character of the established clergy as known to many who 
 yet survive. 
 
 Men whose care of (he flock, to borrow an expression from one 
 of themselves, was ahvays manifest at shearing time, could not with 
 any patience witness the coming in of Dissenters to lead the people 
 off from the parish church. This intrusion did not indeed lessen 
 the salary of the clergy ; but it exhibited their indolence and world- 
 ly spirit in a very odious light. The consequence was, that no 
 class of Dissenters escaped persecution. A Presbyterian clergy- 
 man, who for a long series of years, was regarded as one of the 
 lights of the country, and an ornament of the city in which he lived 
 (the late venerable Dr Rodgers, of New York) was compelled to 
 leave the colony. Dissenters of other denominations experienced 
 treatment, sometimes morn harsh than this. 
 
 But about eighty years a<j;o, n train of remarkable providences, 
 brought into the colony of Viiginia, the Rev. Samuel Davies. a man 
 who would have done honour to any church in any age. The es- 
 tablishment was then in its vigour ; and it required all the talents 
 of Davies to convince the rtiling powers that the Jlct of Toleration 
 extended to this country. The energy of that distinguished man, 
 however, succeeded in securing the protection of the law to the 
 Presbyterian church, which was then organized in the colony. The 
 progress of this society in Virginia in later times has been so slow, 
 
8 Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's llmUcalion and Defence. 
 
 that one can scarcely believe the accounts of its rapid growth in 
 the days of Davies and his compeers. The reasons of this increase 
 may be found in the character of the men who were employed as 
 instruments, their fervent zeal, their perfect union and co-operation, 
 •their indefatigable industry ; and in the facts, that many of the ori- 
 ginal settlers of the state were Presbyterians in principle, and that 
 numbers in the established church were dissatislied with the con- 
 duct of the clergy. 
 
 One of the measures resorted (o at the time, to stop the progress 
 of dissent was the cry that Dissenters had no right to preach and 
 administer the ordinances. This gave occasion to the only publi- 
 cations of a controversial character made by the Presbyterians 
 while they were Dissenters. On one or two occasions, when min- 
 isters were to be ordained, Davies vindicated the validity of Pres- 
 byterial ordination, and published his sermons for the information 
 of the people. He, however, carefully abstained from attacking 
 the Episcopalians ; but acted entirely on the defensive. We have 
 reason to believe that the pulpits of the established church rung 
 with the cry of war against these intruders, but the Presbyterians 
 content with th« defence which had been made, remained on this 
 head entirely silent. 
 
 Affairs went on in this way, until the Pcevolution broke down the 
 established church. In this case the Presbyterians showed no in- 
 decent triumph at her fall, no glorying over her in her ruin. The 
 principles of religious liberty, however, which were then estab- 
 lished, being perfectly coincident with those held by the whole 
 body of Presbyterians in this country, were regarded as in the 
 highest degree auspicious to the true interests of religion ; and the 
 members of that denomination were perfectly satisfied. Without 
 interfering in any way with others, they proceeded to preach the 
 gospel, and, by promoting sound learning and true morality as they 
 could, to discharge the duty of good citizens, expressing their obli- 
 gations to society for peace and protection, by contributing their 
 share to the common welfare. 
 
 It deserves to be distinctly remarked, that it has uniformly been a 
 jirinciple 'itnih that society not to seek for proselytes. If an in- 
 discreet individual has disregarded this principle, we are prepared 
 to challenge, and we boldly do challenge proof to contradict our 
 general remark. We have carefully perused the records of the 
 Church in this state from the organization of the Presbytery of 
 Hanover until the present day, and are convinced that they fully 
 bear out our assertion. The Presbyterians receive those who ap- 
 ply, if on examination they are approved ; but they solicit none. 
 Their conduct towards other denominations has been marked by 
 extreme liberality. They acknowledge brotherhood with all who 
 hold the fundamental doctrmes of Christianity ; they commune with 
 them, and receive them into communion, while they ask none to 
 give up their distinctive names, or leave their church connexions. 
 Many Episcopalians can bear witness to the truth of this statement, 
 and know that for years, while deprived of the privileges of their 
 own church, they have participated in all the advantages which 
 
Review of Bishop Mavenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 9 
 
 Presbyterians can afford to their own members. This course of 
 conduct, united with the natural influence of our free institutions, 
 did much to soften down and nearly eradicate old prejudices. A 
 few years ago, it was not uncommon to see Presbyterians and Epis- 
 copalians at the same communion table, and their ministers in the 
 same pulpit. No one ever expected, or, as far as we know, even 
 wished that the churches should be amalgamated ; but the hope 
 was entertained that their ministers and members would live to- 
 gether as brethren, in the habitual interchange of christian kindness. 
 
 This view of things shows why the Presbyterians have forborne 
 to press their peculiar sentiments ; and explains the reason why 
 the people of the South have never as far as Presbyterians are 
 concerned in the thing, been made acquainted with the Episcopal 
 controversy. Bishop R. seems to reproach us with this fact : 
 whereas we have thought, and we still presume to think, that here 
 is a proof of our exemplary moderation. It would have been easy 
 for us to have made an attack, and gained the victory, when there 
 was none to oppose us. But the Presbyterians are above a warfare 
 of this kind, as they are above a narrow, sectarian, proselyte-hunt- 
 ing spirit. 
 
 Not to indulge, however, in remarks of this kind, we proceed to 
 observe that while the hopes before mentioned were entertained, 
 some of the most warm hearted and sanguine among the Presbyterians 
 were meditating a plan of ministerial intercourse, to be adopted by 
 the two societies. But in the midst of these projects, what is com- 
 monly called " A Revival of the Episcopal Church" took place. — 
 This event was, to our certain knowledge, hailed with great joy by 
 many Presbyterians. They were deliglited, they were thankful to 
 see, rising up in a sister church, men of liberal zeal and enlighten- 
 ed piety, who, it was hoped, would co-operate with them in supply- 
 ing the spiritual wants of the southern country. It is a fact, which 
 we are able to establish, that in some instances, distinguished Pres- 
 byterian clergymen, advised pious young men, who had numerous 
 Episcopal connexions, to enter the ministry in the Episcopal, rather 
 than in the Presbyterian church, on the ground that in this way 
 they might perhaps be more useful. It was well known, too, that 
 there is a sphere wide enough for the labours of all ; and not the 
 most distant apprehension was entertained of unfriendly collision, 
 or anfraternal rivalry. 
 
 But unhappily, amidst these pleasing anticipations, by some means 
 it began to be whispered about, in one private circle and another, 
 that the Episcopal church is the only true church ; that there is no 
 validity in Presbyterial ordination ; and that Episcopalians ought 
 not to acknowledge the truth and reality of their sacraments. 
 These private hints and whispers took effect, and numbers, whom 
 we had long welcomed to our ordinances, and with whom we de- 
 lighted to hold communion, silently withdrew. To keep up ap- 
 pearances, however, christians of all denominations were invited to 
 receive ordinances at the hands of Episcopal ministers : but they 
 could not unite with others, " for that you know would be an ac- 
 knowledgment of the Validity of their ordination." Indeed; it soon 
 
i Ue'oieiv of bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Ijecame manifest to every observer, that while there was not cour- 
 age to avow exclusive claims and pretensions, there was a secret 
 Agency, the object of which was to spread the opinion, that the 
 Presbyterian church is not a church of Christ. It was not difficult 
 for those who chose it, to trace this under-ground work to the very 
 commencement. 
 
 This sort of attack, often spoken of under the name of '• bush 
 fjghting" called forth two publications, the sole object of which was 
 to show the validity of Presbyterial order and administration ; to 
 prove that we are a branch of the Christian church ; that our min- 
 isters ought to be received as ministers of the gospel ; and that our 
 bretiiren ought to esteem it as great a privilege to commune with 
 us, as it was for us to commune with them. Ail intention of attack- 
 ing any thing but high-church principles was solemnly disavowed ; 
 and a most earnest desire expressed of preserving " the unity of 
 the spirit in the bond of peace." Indeed the hope was cherished, 
 that, without much effort, the spirit of the age would put down ar- 
 rogance and bigotry ; and that they who were raising anew the old 
 cry " the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are WE," would 
 be obliged for their own sakes to hold their peace. 
 
 But in the midst of these things, Dr Ravenscroft, who had for 
 some time been uneasy under the prudential restraints which were 
 laid on him, was chosen and consecrated Bisiiop of the diocese of 
 North Carolina. This afforded him an opportunity, which he was 
 not slow to embrace, of declaring his sentiments as a high church- 
 man. In a farewell sermon delivered to the people of bis former 
 charge ; and in a discourse pronounced at the first meeting of the 
 convention of his diocese, after his induction, he expressed sorrow 
 for his former tenderness towards Dissenters, and openly maintain- 
 ed that there is no true church but the Episcopal ; that hers is the 
 only authorized ministry ; that her sacraments are the only seals 
 of God's covenanted mercies ; and that separated from her com- 
 munion, we have no warranted hopes of salvation. 
 
 Had these sermons been only preached to the people and clergy 
 of his own connexion, we should have remained entirely silent. 
 But they were printed and put into circulation, evidently with the 
 intention of propagating the sentiments of the author. Of this how- 
 ever, we do not complain. The press is free : discussion ought to 
 be unshackled. Every man, under his responsibility to the law of 
 the land, and to the great tribunal of public opinion, has a right to 
 publish what he pleases. This is our right and we mean to exer- 
 cise it : but not causelessly, much less wantonly. And we have 
 made the preceding statement for the purpose of showing that we 
 had grave reasons for the course pursued by us. 
 
 Bishop K. had, in his own peculiar manner, attacked truths and 
 principles, which we conscientiously regard as highly important. 
 He boldly attempted to cut asunder ties which had, for some years, 
 been drawing together christians of difierent denominations, and to 
 break up totally a communion which many had found to be profita- 
 ble and pleasant. He taught men to place a value on matters of 
 minor importance, which ought only to be given to things essential 
 
Review of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication and Defence. 11 
 
 (o salvation. He created incurable divisions, where men ought to 
 agree to differ ; and in our deliberate opinion did much to fix deep- 
 er in the church the old reproach, which it is the endeavour of the 
 present day to wipe off. VVe felt it our duty to animadvert on these 
 sermons in such style as we thought they deserved. 
 
 It was indeefl the opinion of some, that we had undertaken a work 
 of gratuitous labour and trouble ; that tiie extravagant pretensions 
 of bishop R. might be left to sink at once into the oblivion to which, 
 it was believed, they are destined. We thought differently- It 
 has for some time appeared obvious to us that there is growing up 
 a spirit in this country, which st-eks for marks of(hsUnctioir between 
 itself and the mass oftlie people. As lulidelity is out of fashion, 
 and Unit;irianism is not popular to the South, there is a great de- 
 mand, iiinoiig people of a certain sort, (to use a phrase current 
 among all i£Ood cavaliers ever since tlie " merry days of King 
 Charles,'") for a " religion tit for a gentleman." There is, also, 
 among many of our republicans, a passion for ceremony, for pomp 
 and show in religious worship. Others, moreover, too indolent, 
 too much devoted to the worlfl, to secure scriptural evidences of 
 their being in a state of salvation, are willing enough to look to their 
 priests for assurance. High-church notions, then, do not sink un- 
 der the influence of public opinion. It is necessary to make efforts 
 to pull them down. The interests of the church and of the coun- 
 try require it. Under this conviction, we acted according to our 
 sense of duty ; and endeavoured to show that the claims of this 
 bishop could not be sustained either by reason or Scripture. 
 
 Not long after we had performed this humble, but easy service, 
 it was understood that bishop R. on being invited to preach a ser- 
 mon for the benefit of the Bible Societ} of North Carolina, accept- 
 ed the invitation, and made a direct attack on the fundamental prin- 
 ciples of that institution. This extraordinary proceeding would 
 have been left to the animadversions of the particular friends of the 
 Bible Society of North Carolina, (who, by the way, have shovva 
 themselves fully able to do their own work) had not the sermon 
 been published and distributed among us. It attacks principles, 
 dear to the friends of all Bible Societies, and to every consistent 
 Protestant throughout the world. VVe again felt as though we were 
 called on to bring the Bishop under review, and point put the error 
 of liis opinions. And this the more, because he seemed to be going 
 systematically to work in support of high church principles. This 
 became apparent, when he published his Sermon on the Interpreta- 
 tion of Scripture. Tliis completed the development of his scheme. 
 And if we understand it at all, it amounts to this. 
 
 1. As to the Church of Christ : This is the Episcopal Church, and 
 no other. They who are separated from it are schismatics, guilty 
 of grievous sin, and without authorized hope of salvation. 
 
 2. As to the Ministry of the Gospel : It is really a Priesthood di- 
 vinely appointed to offer sacred things to God ; an authoritative 
 agency between man and his Maker, empowered by the administra- 
 tion of the Sacraments to give assurance of the pardon of sin and 
 
12 Review of Bishop Ravenscrofl^s Vindication and Dejence. 
 
 eternal life. But all who are not Episcopally ordained, are intrud- 
 ers into the sacred office ; mere wolves in sheep's clothing. 
 
 3. As to the Scriptures : They are insufficient of themselves, and 
 ought not to be circulated among the people " without note or com- 
 ment ;" but by all means be accompanied with that interpretation, 
 which the church, in every age, has agreed to give as the. true in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 This scheme we regard as untrue and dangerous ; derogatory to 
 the honour of the gospel, and injurious to the best interests both of 
 the Church of Christ and of civil society. Again, therefore, our re- 
 viewer shewed a determination that the bishop's writings should not 
 long go " without notes and coniments." This laudable resolution 
 was adopted from an earnest desire that the public might form a 
 just opinion on the trite character of his principles. Our comments 
 were made in terms frank and familiar ; but, we make bold to sa}'', 
 gentlemanly and christian. We cannot descend to the use of any 
 other : zve cannot forget what belongs to the honour ofthe Christian 
 name, and the dignity of the Christian ministry. But while many 
 thought that we had treated the vehement denunciations, and arro- 
 gant claims of ihe Bishop of North Carolina with too much mildness 
 and courtesy, that right reverend Doctor seemed to think that we 
 had been speaking " evil of dignities, and were audaciously free 
 and bold with prelates ofthe church ; and in the resolution to give 
 us a sound Episcopal castigation, he wrote the extraordinary book, 
 of which the extraordinarij title is given at the head of this article. 
 
 Our first purpose on glancing at this title page was to go no fur- 
 ther. We had no inclination to make ourselves familiar with the 
 interior of a building which hung out such a sign at the door. But 
 it was told us that some were praising the book in high terms, and 
 pronouncing it unanswerable. This induced us to look farther : 
 and we found that the author, besides many other things which have 
 no bearing on the great subject of controversy, in the vehemence 
 of his spirit, pushes his extravagant claims even farther than before. 
 We have therefore compelled ourselves to undertake the unplea- 
 sant task of reviewing this work also: not, we solemnly declare 
 from personal feelings or private motives, but solely with a view to 
 public interests. 
 
 But we wish it to be distinctly understood, that we design to pur- 
 sue the uniform policy of that church, of which we have the honour 
 to be members. We make no attack on Episcopalians. Many of 
 them are our highly esteemed friends. We regaid the evangelical 
 ministers of that communion as brethren. On all that belong to it 
 we can say from the heart, " Grace, mercy and peace be multi- 
 plied." Let them take that course to heaven, which affords them 
 the best helps and the greatest comforts — and the blessing of our 
 common Father and Lord be on them. 
 
 AH this, however, under the full conviction that the Episcopal 
 Church may be fairly separated from high-church prete7isi«ns. If, 
 however, we have mistaken the ca:^e ; and this thing cannot be ; 
 then we are prepared to maintain that the prevalence of that church 
 in this country is far, very far from being desirable. It is, never- 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft^s Vindication and Defence. 13 
 
 theless, our deliberate opinion, tl)at, while these obnoxious prin- 
 ciples may creep into any Society, they may be kept apart from all 
 really Protestant communions ; and that it is the duty of every one 
 to cause the separation to be made as soon as possible, whenever 
 the deleterious mixture takes place. 
 
 We feel the more bound to make these remarks, because bishop 
 R. has thought fit to say that we have attacked the Episcopal 
 church, misrepresented her doctrines, and attempted to excite po- 
 litical odium against her members. Now the Reviewer never en- 
 tertained such a thought or purpose in his life. By no possibility 
 can it be shown that he has done this thing, unless it can be shown 
 that the principles of the Episcopal church, and high-church principles 
 are identical. When convinced of this, he will acknowledge the 
 charge. The Reviewer then affirm? constantly that his assault has 
 been made not on- Episcopalians but on high-church principles. He 
 endeavoured to bring odium on them, because he thinks them odi- 
 ous : to discredit them, because he believes them pernicious both 
 to church and state. He is conscientiously their determined ene- 
 my ; and will, by the help of God, to the latest day of his life carry 
 on a warfare against them, whatever name they may assume, what- 
 ever guise they may wear. But this, so far from being hostile to 
 any denomination of christians, is regarded by the Reviewer as one 
 of the strongest proofs he can give of friendship for that ciiristianity 
 which is common to all. He ought to be believed then, when he 
 (declares that he is above personal enmity and selfish or party pur- 
 poses. The liberal of every name will believe him. Bigots can 
 no more conceive of his feelings, than the " lean, lanksided miser,'' 
 who makes mammon his God, can conceive of the feelings of the 
 iiiaii who finds " that it is more blessed to give than to receive." 
 
 Our views and purposes respecting the whole matter between 
 bishop R. and the Reviewer, may be vefy briefly expressed. The 
 New Testament contains the constitutional principles of the church: 
 it is the c/iar/e?* of our religious liberties. The Reviewer does not 
 
 LIKE THE CONSTRUCTION FVT ON THE CONSTITUTION BY HIGH-CHURCH- 
 
 MEN. It gives them a great deal more power than the letter, or 
 true spirit of the instrument conveys. It is an usurpation which 
 has done infinite mischief to the world. Bishop R.'s mode of in- 
 terpreting the charter, makes use of the dicta of corrupt men for 
 sanctioning abuses which crept in under their administration. This 
 whole evil must be exposed ; and it shall be exposed, notwithstand- 
 ing all the reproaches which anger and bigotry can heap on their 
 objects. The exposition however shall be made calmly, kindly, 
 firmly. It will be time enough to boast, however, of the book be- 
 fore us, when it shall appear that any thing is left unanswered, 
 besides bitter words and hard sayings. In this field — or quagmire, 
 rather — the Reviewer freely acknowledges that he is vanquished— 
 They who glory in the triumph, may crown the victor ! 
 
 It may be as well here as any where else to notice an undeserved 
 compliment given by bishop R. to his Reviewer. " It is well 
 known," says he, (pa. 30.) '* that you are looked up to as the 
 Magnus Jlpollo of the Southern Presbyterian interest, and that the 
 
14 Reoicw of Bishop Itavenserojt^s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 direction given to the opinion of the readers of your Magazine, is 
 implicitly followed. If the spring then be poisoned at its fountain, 
 what must be the desolation of its meanders ?" It seems to be a 
 pity to spoil this pretty mixture oftiguresby disclaiming entirely 
 both the honour and the responsibility here iieaped on tite Reviewer. 
 We are not surprised however, at the bisho|)'s ignorance of the 
 Presbyterian church. There are oidy two errors in this extract, 
 which we think it of importance to correct. I. The Reviewer so 
 far from being the JMagims Jlpollo of Southern Presbyterians, is no 
 Apollo at all. He is an humble member of an association of men, 
 at the feet of many of whom he counts it a privilege, when the op- 
 portunity is offered, to sit as a learner, while he rejoices in the su- 
 periority of their gifts and graces. Let not the bishop lay "the 
 flattering unction to his soul," that should he succeed in totally de- 
 molishing the Reviewer, his warfare will then be accomplished. — 
 There are in our Israel mighty men, like those round about David, 
 as recorded in 2 Sam. xxiii, and among the least of these is the 
 Reviewer, 
 
 2. But secondly, the right reverend prelate of North Carolina 
 needs to be informed that Presbyterians have never been given to 
 the exercise of implicit faith in any being but God Almighty. Their 
 principles : their whole religious training from infancy to manhood ; 
 their religious discipline in all its parts, are utterly at war with tiiis 
 submission of the understanding. And when bishop R. has the 
 happiness of knowing them as well as we do, he will have found out 
 that they are a hard people to manage ; and indeed that it is scarcely 
 possible to do any thing with them, unless by solid reasons one con- 
 vinces their understanding. In fact they are too independent and 
 too conscientious, to be " calculating," and " united" men : und 
 among them every one pursues pretty much his own course, and 
 leaves it to others to pursue theirs. 
 
 It is our purpose, because we think it to be our duty, to enter 
 pretty fully into the matters of difference between us and the right 
 reverend John S. Ravenscroft, D.D. bishop of the diocese of 
 North Carolina. But there are some preliminaries, which we wish 
 our readers maturely to consider, and fully to understand, before 
 we touch the main questions in this controversy. They lie at the 
 foundation of a correct decision respecting the whole matter. 
 They also show that the subject is one of great importance, involv- 
 ing our most valuable rights, and dearest interests. We shall 
 therefore, without further preface or apology, proceed to treat 
 them according to our views of their true character. 
 
 When Christianity was introduced into the world, it found, every 
 where established by law, a religion o|){)osed to its <loctrine and 
 discipline. The apostles and primitive christians were Diisenfers, 
 in the fullest sense of that term ; and were treated both by Jews 
 and Gentiles, as hardly as high churchmen have ever treated those 
 who have borne the name in modern times. But no reproaches, 
 no dangers, no sufferings moved them. With a firmness and fidel- 
 ity worthy of everlasting remembrance, they taught the doctrine, 
 and U)ifolded the principles pf discipline, which they had learned 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 15 
 
 from their Master. The maxims which they received, and deli- 
 vered to others, uere such as these. "My kingdom is not of this 
 world."' — "But be yc not called Kabbi : for one is your master, 
 even Christ ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your 
 father upon the earth : for one is your father, which is in heaven. 
 Neither be ye called masters : for one is your master, even 
 Christ.''' — "Neither as being Lords over Cod's heritage, but being 
 ensamples to the flock," &,c. The men left by them in the church- 
 es, had a large portion of their spirit. But corruption soon began 
 to work aniong them. Changes from good to bad, and from bad to 
 worse were introduced. A spirit of domination invaded the clergy. 
 They sought eagerl3/ for wealth and power, were but too success- 
 ful in their efforts, and established a terrible despotism throughout 
 the christian world. These are unquestioned fa( ts ; and we wish 
 in the present number to assist our readers in tracing them to their 
 proper causes. Unless they will take the trouble to do this, the 
 most instructive portion of the history of man will afJ'ord its warn- 
 ings in vain. 
 
 In accomplishing the object proposed, it is necessary to consider 
 the nature of the religion taught by Christ. Without just views of 
 this subject, we are contiuu.dly in d .mger of being mislead by the 
 fierce and noisy declamation, the bold assertions, and artful so- 
 phisms of men, who wish to invest themselves with official dignity. 
 And here we cannot help remarking, that there is no subject in re- 
 lation to which men in general so easily suffer themselves to be 
 imposed on, as that of religion. In some, there is an indolence and 
 indifference, which allows any one who will soothe their ruling de- 
 sire, to think for them. In others, there is a sort of enthusiasm or 
 fanaticism, which offers a fine subject for the artful and designing 
 to play on. And in all who have no fixed religious princ iples, 
 there is a proneness to superstition, which at the proper time gives 
 to the impostor a powerful hold on the mind. We do therefore 
 think it oftlie highest importance, that all should have just views of 
 the fundamental truths of the christian religion. It suits our pur- 
 pose here only to lay down general prinri[des. 
 
 True religion consists in just views of the attributes and govern- 
 ment of Deity ; and in feelings and conduct corresponding with 
 those views. It, however, will always be modified by our knowl- 
 edge of the character and condition of man, and of the purposes of 
 divine justice and mercy in relation to him. This knowledge of 
 God and man, of tiuth and duty, embodied in due form, constitutes 
 a system of religion ; and the sentiments, the feelings, the princi- 
 ples of action, formed by the system of truth, constitute vital and 
 practical religion. Considered in this point of view, religion is 
 founded in the nature of man. Veneration of wh;it is august and 
 majestic ; awe of almighty power ; love of excellence ; gratitude 
 lownrds a benefactor; a sense of weakness ; the feeling of guilt ; 
 anxiety in relation to the future, are the elements, in human na- 
 ture, of that complex feeling which we call religion. 
 
 The founder of Christianity introduced a system in many impor- 
 tant respects different from any that had ever been taught before. 
 
16 Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence, 
 
 It was indeed a filling up of the Jewish system ; but the additions 
 made by him rendered necessary a very great change in the exter- 
 nal form of the church. As a particular instance, the Jewish reU- 
 gion, in common with most others, bad its altar and its priests. But 
 Christianity has neither. The proper notion of ;» priest is, that of a 
 person appointed to make offerings to God, on behalf of the people. 
 These offerings are of various kinds ; and among them vve always 
 find some of an expiatory character. But there is nothing of all 
 this among the offices to be performed by the ministers of Christ's 
 religion. In his dispensation, he is the only priest. By one offer- 
 ing of himself, he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified. 
 Since his death there has been no priest of God's appointment. 
 
 Christianity, according to the teaching of Jesus Christ and his 
 apnstles, consists entirely in knowledge of the truth, in affections 
 corresponding to the truth, and a course of conduct in accordance 
 n-ith these affections. It is a religion of knowledge and love : an 
 homage of the heart; a voluntary service. The church of Christ 
 is from the nature of the case a voluntary association. It cannot 
 be formed in any other way. Christ owns none as his people, but 
 a "willing people." In the church then, as administered according 
 to the law of Christ, there is no place for coercive power. It is 
 impossible to make men christians, except by reason and convic- 
 tion. Jesus Christ never thought of imy other mode. According- 
 ly, the Society organized by him differs widely from the political 
 associations of tliis world. And the institutions of the Saviour, 
 were in conformity with the genius of his religion. The only 
 means appointed by him for the promotion of this religion were af- 
 fectionate teaching and persuasion. He sent out men, whose great 
 business was to set truth before the people, and persuade them to 
 embrace it. This is the most dignified and important work in the 
 church ; the great object of the institution of the gospel ministr3^ 
 
 Ecclesiastical power, then, is quite another thing than high 
 churchmen have supposed it to be. A church, we have said, is a 
 voluntary association formed on the great principles of belief in the 
 doctrines, and obedience to the law of Christ. The exercise of 
 power is limited and regulated by those principles. The church 
 is bound to receive all vvho profess faith and obedience ; the teach- 
 ers instruct them more fully in the doctrines and duties of their re- 
 ligion, and persuade them to obey the commands of their Saviour. 
 They have no influence but a moral influence ; no power but such 
 as truth and love afford. And if this does not prevail, the church 
 refuses any longer to acknowledge fellowship with the disobedient. 
 
 These are the great principles on which Jesus Christ founded 
 his cliurch. The obligation to be a member of it, respects the au- 
 thority of God alone ; and the demand of the Almighty is on the 
 will and the affections. " My son give me thy heart." The whole 
 polity of the church, we repeat, is exactly adapted to its nature 
 as a voluntary society. The principles of prudence and common 
 sense which apply to the regulation of all similar associations, were 
 adopted by the Head of the Church ; and such arrangements were 
 made for the preservation of order, and the attainment of the greali. 
 
lieviexo of Bishop llavenscrofl's Vindication and Defence. 1 7 
 
 objects in view, as commend themselves to the understanding of 
 all men. 
 
 It id easy to see, that in a society such as this, there is but little 
 room for the exercise of government, in the common acceptation of 
 the term. Where the whole power is moral power, he, who most 
 clearly and most affectionately, exhibits the truth, and lives the 
 most exemplary life, exerts the greatest influence. So it was in 
 the beginning. The iirst teachers of Christianity did not subdue 
 the world by blustering and vapouring about apostolical dignity, 
 and diocesan authority ; but they won their way to the hearts of 
 men by love. 
 
 It deserves to be remarked, however, that it suited the wise pur- 
 poses of the Head of the Church gradually to unfold his system, and 
 to appoint men, furnished with extraordinary gifts, to complete the 
 work which he, in his wisdom, left uniiqi^hed. These men exe- 
 cuted their commission with exemplary tidelity : and under the di- 
 rection of the Holy Spirit, gave a body of written instructions, con- 
 taining the whole will of their Lord respecting his church. This 
 was intended to be the common rule for the direction of all, 
 whether teachers or disciples. 
 
 The Apostles also left, in the various divisions of this great soci- 
 ety, suitable persons as teachers of the new religion ; whose pro- 
 vince it also was to preside over the affairs of the church, accord- 
 ing to the true character of their office, and the rules given for the 
 regulation of their conduct. The design plainly was to perpetuate 
 the Association and preserve in purity the doctrines originally 
 taught. This was the leading object of the appointment of church 
 officers ; and he is most tit to be a minister of the gospel, who 
 knows most of the doctrines of Christ, and has most of his spirit. 
 
 But while, from the very nature of the christian religion, it is ex- 
 pedient that there should be teachers, the Head of the Church 
 never subjected the faith of his disciples to their spiritual instruct- 
 ors. This is put beyond all contradiction by the directions given 
 in Scripture to the whole body of the faithful : — it is most evident 
 too from the very nature of the case. 
 
 1. The directions given to the whole body of christians arc such 
 as these — " Beloved, believe not every spirit ; but try the spirits 
 whether they are of God ; because many false prophets are gone 
 out into the world — Prove all things, hold fast that which is good 
 — Now 1 beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions 
 and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and 
 avoid them — Now we command you, brethren ; in the name of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every bro- 
 ther that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition (doctrine) 
 which ye received of us — And if any man obey not our word by 
 this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he 
 may be ashamed." Here is a clear acknowledgment of the right 
 of private judgment ; and here the members of the church were 
 required to distinguish between true and false teachers, between 
 sound and corrupt doctrine. Such are the rights and duties of 
 christians now. Before the Canon of Scripture was formed, the 
 
1 8 Review of Bishop ItavenscrofV s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Apostles themselves under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, fur- 
 nished the standard of truth. But when they had committed the 
 doctrine of Christ to writing, and delivered it in this form to the 
 churches, then Scripture formed the standard ; and hy this unerr- 
 ing rule, all were to try the spirits, and detect false doctrine. 
 
 2. It appears from the very nature of the case that /nen must 
 either judge for themselves, according to the Scriptures ; or have 
 an infidlible human guide. If we should be persuailed hy the very 
 mild, courtly and dignified language of the right reverend doctor 
 John S. Ravenscroft, to put ourselves under the direction of his holy 
 apostolical church, wdl he answer for us in the day of judgment ; 
 will he, can he take our place at the dread tribunal I If not, what 
 will be the consequence if we embrace false doctrine, and in con- 
 formity to it, live an unholy life ? The church can err, for it has 
 erred. Will the guilt be charged on the church, and fivour be 
 shown to us ? Clearly every mm must answer for himself before 
 God ; and therefore every man " must be fully persuaded in his 
 own mind." 
 
 These were the principles of the primitive church. They were 
 taught by the Apostles and received by their converts. The first 
 ministers did not pretend that they held a higher office than that of 
 teachers. And they were surrounded by a body of atfectionate, 
 confiding disciples. There was no assumption of power or pre- 
 eminence among them ; there was no order of priesthood ; no mys- 
 terious rites ; no pretended charm in sacraments ; no incompre- 
 hensible virtue in ordinances as administered by one particular 
 class of men; but all was plain and intelligible. In a word, the 
 church was a voluntary association organized in its simplest forms. 
 And while it continued thus, Christianity grew and flourished. Its 
 moral influence was too mighty for philosophy, priestcraft, arbitra- 
 ry power, and prevailing corruption combined. But in process of 
 time there was a mournful change. "The abomination of desola- 
 tion" was seen in the holy place. The ministers of Christianity 
 became proud, luxurious, and avaricious; and the church of Christ 
 a theatre for the display of the most . orrupt passions of the human 
 heart. This sad change it is our pamful duty to trace to its causes : 
 our only consolation is that the work is full of important instruction. 
 
 We shall therefore proceed, in discharge of the duty vvhich we have 
 assigned ourselves, to notice some of the most striking and disas- 
 trous changes which were produced in the form and doctrine of the 
 church. But there is one remark, which we previously offer to 
 the most serious consideration of our readers. If religion is ever 
 permitted to travel out of its proper sphere, and mingle with po- 
 litical concerns, one of two things is sure to happen ; either reli- 
 gion gains the ascendency over the civil power, and there is erected a 
 fearful ecclesiastical tyranny ; or, the state is obliged, for the preven- 
 tion of this evil, to purchase an alliance with the church, and take the 
 ministers of religion into its pay, for the purpose of securing their 
 subserviency. 
 
 We wish to offer an additional observation : the only power, as 
 we have said, that properly belongs to the church, is moral pon-cr : 
 
Review of Bishop UavemcroJVs Vindication and Defence. 19 
 
 it is the influence which the wise and good exert on their fellow 
 men. This influence is greatest, where the community is enlight- 
 ened and virtuous. But an ignorant population is always prone to 
 superstition and fanaticism ; and atTords a full opportunity for the 
 attainment and exercise of undue ecclesiastical power. Now reli- 
 gion has respect to the greatest of all beings, and the dearest of all 
 interests ; it therefore takes a most powerful hold on the human 
 heart, and brings its uncontrolable energies to bear on all human 
 concerns. Its influence is irresistible. I(, however, deserves 
 most serious consideration, that religion may be false as well as 
 true ; and that the power of the former, though far dilTerent in its 
 effects, is as mighty as that of the latter. Superstition and fanati- 
 cism are the storms and tornadoes of the moral world, which mark 
 their way with desolation and ruin. The unreasonable dread of 
 supernatural beings may be as strong as filial fear of the deity : the 
 cowardice of guilt, and the stings of remorse render men as prompt 
 to submit to severe penances, as, under the dictates of an enlight- 
 ened conscience, they are to discharge their duty to God and man. 
 
 According to these remarks, a faithful and enlightened ministry 
 of the gospel always desires to promote learning and science among 
 the people ; while men of aspiring views and sinister motives, whose 
 aim is to lord it over God's heritage, are well content that the peo- 
 ple should remain incapable of judging for themselves. And it de- 
 serves to be remembered, that during the changeful periods which 
 we are now about to bring under a brief review, the population of 
 the Roman empire, and of the nations which grew out of it, was 
 such as just suited the purposes of ambitious and worldly-minded 
 men, whose great object was to raise the church above all other 
 power, and accumulate in its coffers the wealth of the world. — 
 They were ignorant of religion, and excessively superstitious, 
 often mingling ferocious cruelty, ardent devotion, and unbounded 
 generosity, in a manner truly strange and surprising. Among these 
 people, such changes as the following were produced in a few cen- 
 turies. 
 
 1. In the beginning the clergy were teachers of religion, surround- 
 ed by a body of affectionate disciples, who looked up to them for 
 instruction. They had no influence or power but that derived from 
 the humility, the benevolence, the purity of their character, and 
 their superior knowledge of the religion which they taught. They 
 pretended no persomd authority ; "rio dignity of rank or order; and 
 claimed reverence only for the truth which they announced ; and 
 that, not because they announced it, but because tior> had revealed it. 
 In a word they were oflicers in a voluntary association, chosen by 
 the people to manage the affairs of the church, and responsible for 
 their conduct. 
 
 But in process of time they came to be God's agents, deriving all 
 their power from Him through their predecessors, and accountable 
 to him alone. They alone were authorized to expound the truth ; 
 and men were obliged to believe it, because it came from them as 
 God's ambassadors. The sacraments were seals of the truth, be- 
 cause they were administered by these divinely authorized agents. 
 3 
 
20 Review of Bishop Ravenscrqft's Findication and Defence. 
 
 Through them alone could men receive the assurance of forgiveness 
 and of eternal life. They were empowered to transmit by imposi- 
 tion of their hands a character, which none could ever take away, 
 and by which others could perform these same wonderful works. 
 They assumed to be priests, and held themselves authorized by 
 divine appointment to offer sacred things to God, on behalf of the 
 people, which were acceptable to the divine majesty simply because 
 thus offered. This was carried so far, that the virtue of any ad- 
 ministration was made to depend on the intention of the priest. If 
 he designed to administer a sacrament, it was a sacrament ; other- 
 wise not ! 
 
 There was also a very great change in the temporal affairs of the 
 ministers of religion. In the beginning, they were dependent on 
 the voluntary contributions of the people for si]p[)ort ; but in pro- 
 cess of time they became rich: at first they looked, as all other citi- 
 zens did, to the state for protection, and thought themselves happy 
 when they escaped persecution ; but afterwards they claimed ex- 
 emption from civil authority, and often bearded tl)e proudest rulers 
 in their halls ofstate : while they retained the spirit of their master, 
 they delighted to preach the gospel to the poor ; but in after times, 
 they sought to be counsellors and courtiers in royal palaces. 
 
 2. The Rites of the church as prescribed by Jesus Christ, were 
 ievi., simple and intelligible, administered in the phsinost manner, 
 and with no appearance vvhatever of show and parade. i here 
 were only two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper : No 
 peculiar sanctity was attributed to place^^ ; but wherever a body of 
 christians met, whetiier in a private house, a cave, or a wilderness, 
 there was a place for the worship of the living God. Hence there 
 were none of the mummeries of consecrating burying grounds, and 
 bells, and vestments and chalices, and tlie brick and mortar of 
 houses, which prevailed in after times. There were no priests, 
 with their mitres and robes, and all the paraphernalia of pontifical- 
 dignity ; but men of simple manners and simple apparel ofliciated 
 as teachers of their brethren. 
 
 But in all these things changes v.'ere introduced, of which the 
 manifest design was to increase the power and splendour of the 
 clergy. The sacraments were multiplied from two to seven : they 
 were made necessary to salvation ; were connected with all the 
 business of life ; and made to reach from the cradle to the grave. 
 -BopZism not only brought the subject into the school of Christ, to 
 be taught his doctrine ; but also, wheji duly administered ^ conterred 
 grace and effected regeneration ; while without it, the hapless in- 
 fant was doomed to perdition ! And what added greatly to the mis- 
 chief here, it was held, as also in relation to the other sacraments, 
 that the grace was not conferred unless the priest intended it : so 
 that if one wished to save his own soul or that of his child from 
 endless ruin, he must keep in favour with his priest ! ! 
 
 After Baptism came confirmation, a sacrament contrived to sup- 
 ply any defects that might have existed in the admini^fiation of 
 baptism, intended to bestow more grace, and certify those v\ho had 
 been renewed by baptism of the favour and gracious goodness of 
 God towards them. 
 
Review of Bishop Kavenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 21 
 
 But it is possible for all this grace to be lost; otherwise there 
 would be no need of any sacrament but baptism. To provide for 
 this case then, it is pretended that our Lord, after his resurrection, 
 instituted ihe sacrament of penance, ulien he breathed on his disci- 
 ples, and said "Receive ye the Holy Spirit; whose sins soever ye 
 remit they are remitted unto them; and whose soever ye retain 
 they are retained !" By vvhich words it is pretended that the apos- 
 tles, and their legitimate successors received power to remit sins, 
 and reconcile believers who might fall into sin after baptism. The 
 power of administering this sacrament, and of course, of conferring 
 the grace here necessary, belongs to bishops and priests alone. 
 Here then according to the doctrines received, the poor sinner is at 
 the mercy of his priest; he must receive absolution or be lost ! 
 
 In the beginning, the Lord^s Supper was regarded as an ordinance 
 in which the death of Christ, as a sacrifice for sin was commemo- 
 rated; the faith of the believer was strengthened, and his love in- 
 flamed, by paitaking of bread and wine, as symbols of Christ's body 
 and blood. But by gradual additions, this plain and simple rite was 
 made the greatest of all mysteries, and the grossest of all absurdi- 
 ties. The duly authorized priest was empowered by the magic of 
 episcopal ordination, to convert the bread used into the body and 
 blood, tlie soul and divinity of the Saviour. And any sinner who, 
 could satisfy the priest of his repentance, and induce him to ad- 
 minister the ordinance, was sure of salvation, at any rate until the 
 bread sliould be digested ! It is not necessary to pursue these par- 
 ticulars fartlier. The church, by pronouncing matrimony a sacra- 
 ment, took that important rite entirely into its own hands, and by 
 various canons greatly increased the power of the clergy. The de- 
 cisions respecting ordination were well suited to bind the clergy 
 together in one body, and diffuse among them the same spirit. 
 And the sacrament of extreme unction enabled the priest, at the last 
 hour, to bring the dying sinner to his own terms. 
 
 3. The vehole worship of the primitive church, was characterized 
 by extreme simplicity. It was manifest that the great object was to 
 carry truth directly to the understanding, and by this means as pow- 
 erfully as possible to affect the heart. But in the progress of this great 
 change which we are considering, the houses of worship were made to 
 rival royal palaces; the ministers of the church were as numerous as 
 the servants of a king; paintings, and statues, gold and silver ves- 
 sels, various and most costly instruments of music, scarlet and pur- 
 jjle and tine linen, and all things magnificent and expensive were 
 employed to give splendour to divine worship, and cause a strong 
 impression to be made on the senses. Hence throughout the 
 church, there was but little knowledge of the truth, little spiritual 
 service, little vital piety. Worship was a show to entertain the 
 people. Even prayer was offered in an unknown tongue; because 
 forsooth, the minister was a priest whose business it was to ofler 
 holy things to God ; and the laity had nothing to do but confide their 
 cause to the hands of their priests. The Bible was never quoted in 
 the vernacular language, because, it being the business of the 
 church to interpret the word of God, the people had nothing to do 
 but believe what their priests told them. 
 
22 Review of Bishop Ravenscrofl's Vindicalioti and Defence. 
 
 4. The Church of Christ in the beginning, was as we have seen, a 
 voluntary association, made up of all who had been convinced of 
 the truth, and had felt the power of the Christian religion. It had 
 nothing to do with any matters of civil or political regulation. It 
 rendered to Caesar the things that were Caesar's, and to God the 
 things that were God's. Not an instance can be shown of any in- 
 termeddling with afl'airs of stale by Christ or his apostles. They 
 confined themselves entirely to matters of religion. 
 
 But in about three centuries the church became an ally of the 
 state; and owned the authority of the civil ruler in afiiiirs of con- 
 science. This elevation in temporal dignity, however, was only a 
 stepping stone for ambitious prelates. They aimed at uncontroled 
 supremacy in church and state, and succeeded in their daring pro- 
 jects. Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, was deposed 
 by an assembly of bishops: his subjects were released from their 
 allegiance; and his kingdom was transferred to another. This de- 
 generate prince made no objection to their authority, but only com- 
 plained that "he had not been heard and judged by the bishops, 
 through whose ministry he had been consecrated, who are called 
 the thrones of God, in which God sitteth, and by whom he dispen- 
 ses his judgments; to whose paternal chastisement I was willing. 
 says he, to submit, and do still submit myself." 
 
 The power of the bishops excited the envy of the pope, 
 and the court of Rome set itself to lessen their influence, and to 
 raise itself. In the ninth century the bishops bad exalted them- 
 selves to the highest pitch of grandeur and power. The policy 
 and art of the sovereign pontiffs were successful in reducing them, 
 and concentrating in themselves a great part of the influence which 
 had been diffused among the prelates. In no period of the world 
 and by no body of men has there ever been a greater display of con- 
 summate sagacity, than was evinced in the eleventh and twelfth cen- 
 tury by the court of Rome. That system of ecclesiastical domina- 
 tion, which goes under the name of popery, is a stupendous contri- 
 vance of human genius. The plan was steadily pursued by one 
 pope after another; and at length it was thought safe to use such 
 language as the following: "As the sun and j;he moon are placed in 
 the firmament, the greater as the light of the day, and the lesser of 
 the night; thus there are two powers in the church: the pontifical, 
 which, as having the charge of souls is the greater; and the royal, 
 which is the less, and to which the bodies of men only are trusted." 
 
 We wish our readers to consider this subject most carefully. Let 
 them take the New Testament, and Ibrm a clear, distinct idea of 
 religion as taught by Christ and his apostles, and of the church as 
 organized by them: and then let them contemplate that monstrous 
 picture, of which we have given the outline. What instance in all 
 the annals of the world, can be produced, of similar perversion and 
 corruption? How was this melancholy change wrought? This sub- 
 ject deserves most serious inquiry? For the man of sin is not yet 
 destroyed. The evil is not yet eradicated. There is enough igno- 
 rance, and superstition on one side; and enough ambition and love 
 of the world on the other, to afford great opportunities of mischief. 
 And undue pretensions ought always to be marked and resisted. 
 
Review of Bishnpllavenscrojfs Vindication and Defence. 23 
 
 In the sequel of this number, we shall present a general view of 
 the causes which produced the deterioration of the church, and 
 turned the greatest of God's blessings into the most enormous of all 
 abuses. 
 
 1. The first of these in order, we place under the head of Tra- 
 dition. Jesus Christ, as has already been remarked, for wise pur- 
 poses, appointed men to complete the organization of the church. 
 These men were furnished with extraordinary powers, to qualify 
 them for their work. It belonged to them authoritatively to deli- 
 ver the will of their master. Divinely inspired teachers, they af- 
 forded to all believers while they lived, an infallible standard of 
 truth. And it was very natural that the cfuirches, which they had 
 planted, should recur to the body of instruction received from the 
 apostles, and tell others what they had heard from these holy men. 
 This indeed was necessary, until the writings left by the first teach- 
 ers of Christianity, were put into the hands of believers. Thus 
 was formed the habit ot inquiring from those who heard the Apos- 
 tles, what they had taught concerning Jesus Christ, and his salva- 
 tion. Information communicated in this way is called tradition. It 
 is a very imperfect mode of preserving and transmitting truth; as is 
 manifest from this; that although the Apostles had the fullest oppor- 
 tunity of hearing the whole teaching of Jesus Christ, they were 
 preserved from error by the inspiration ofthe Holy Spirit. Every 
 one knows how a story will grow, in passing through a few hands. 
 Reports concerning the sayings and doings of Christ, were thus 
 spread and exaggerated. The same thing happened in the case of 
 the Apostles: Men of weak judtcment and lively imagination from a 
 traditionary hint or two, can construct a long narrative which they 
 easily persuade themselves to believe, and repeat to others as un- 
 questionable truth. . Thus there was gradually formed a body of 
 traditions, vvhich grew with succeeding ages, and was invested with 
 authority equal to tliat ofthe scriptures. So that when the tvord 
 of God tailed to decide a question, respecting which the church 
 wanted a decision, recourse was had to tradition. Often, there 
 were opposing traditions, and tne church deuideil which was most 
 worthy of credit. The Jews had tried this method before. It was 
 pretended by their Ral)bins, that besides the written law, Moses had 
 received an oral comuiuniorition from God, which he, in turn, made 
 to Joshua, and so on through successive centuries, until at last it was 
 reduced to writing, and preserved in a number of ponderous folios. 
 By this body of traflitions all questions among tlie Jews are deter- 
 mined to this day. Christians, at an early period, began to try the 
 same expedient; and aposioliral tradition soon acquired great influ- 
 ence in the church. At length it was put on a level with holy- 
 scripture. It is so regarded at this day by all good catholics; and 
 many a protestant is so trammeled by it, that although he admits 
 the supremacy of scripture, he is afraid to say what the Bible means 
 until he learns how the fitliers interpreted it. 
 
 It is easy to see that this is the worst of all methods of preserving 
 the truth; and that among ignorant, credulous, and super-titious peo- 
 ple, it opens wide the door for every sort of error and abuse. 
 
i:4 Review of lihhnp Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence, 
 
 2. After the death of the Apostles, their writings formed the 
 standard of Christian truth. During their life, the church was pre- 
 served free from iinportiint errors, 'i'he abettors of heresy and 
 schism were put down by their decisive authority. But when they 
 were out of the way, heretics as well as the orthodox could pretend 
 apostolical trathtion. Nothing could ensure purity of doctrine and 
 soundness in the faith, but recurrence to the authenticated writings 
 of the Apostles. And nothing; can be more evident, than that the 
 preservation of the true doctrine, depends on the right interpreta- 
 tion of the oracles of God. The real meaning of the sacred writings 
 can alone enable us to judge what true Christianity is. This being 
 undeniably true, we assign, as one povverful cause of the corrup- 
 tion of Christianity, the fact that the early fathers were wretched ex- 
 positors of Scripture. This declaration may startle some of our 
 readers. But we have, at hand, most abundant evidence of its 
 truths and in the sequel of this Review will produce it, to the full 
 conviction of every impartial mind. Our purpose, at present, is to 
 state the fact with proper distinctions, that all may judge for them- 
 selves of its influence in the corruption of Christianity. Let it then 
 be understood, that we tuUy admit that the disciples of the Apostles 
 learned from them, what true religion is; and that, in the beginning, 
 there were brief symbols of faith, containing the fundamental doc- 
 trines of Christianity, and received by all who were admitted into 
 the church. The fathers too were generally honest and good men, 
 who believed the facts to which they gave their testimony. But 
 a distinction ought to be made between their testimony respecting doc- 
 trine, and their interpretation of scripture. When they declare that a 
 particular doctrine was handed down from the Apostles, it ought to be 
 admitted that such was thf^ir belief; and their testimony is to be re- 
 ceived as evidence, according to their means of knowing the fact. 
 But their expositions of scripture are to be judged of according to the 
 known laws of language, and the established principles of interpreta- 
 tion. The right reverend Doctor, whose work has furnished a Re- 
 view for these dogdays, does not appear ever to have thought of this; 
 but constantly speaks as though he really believed, that the fathers 
 received and handed down the interpretation given by the Apostles to 
 their own writings. So at least we understand him. But they 
 do no such thing. They attempt to interpret scripture, just as men 
 of their stamp do at the present day. They mystify, and allegorize 
 so as to make of scripture a perfect "nose of wax," which one may 
 put into any shape, or turn in any direction that pleases his fancy. 
 Even the most learned among them were strangely misled by Jew- 
 ish fooleries. Their exegetical writings opened the way for many 
 extravagant opinions, and many corruptions of christian doctrine. 
 Their allegories, and wild speculations bewildered the minds of the 
 people in former times; and a childish reverence for every thing 
 ancient gives them no small currency in the present day. The in- 
 fluence of this evil may be very clearly presented by a familiar 
 illustration. The nature and form of our government are express- 
 ed in a written constitution. The framers of that constitution, in- 
 tended by the words of which it is composed to express a certain 
 
Jleview of Bishop Ravenscrojt' s Vindication and Defence. 25 
 
 and definite meaning: it was their design to give the government so 
 much power and no more, and to secure their rights to the people. 
 Now, as long as they vvlio administer the government, give to the 
 constitution the meaning which its tVamers had when they wrote it, 
 exercising precisely the powers bestowed on them and no others; 
 and acknowledging all the rights of the people; the constitution is 
 maintained in its purity. But when a different construction is put 
 on the national charter; when the administration exercises powers 
 not conferred, and withholds chartered rights, the actual character 
 of the government is changed, although its frame may remain unal- 
 tered. So when the true meaning of scripture is not given; but 
 another that never was in the minds of the sacred writers, religion 
 is perverted, and the church becomes corrupt. This was the case 
 in former times; not suddenly, but as commonly happens by gradu- 
 al changes. 
 
 These observations have been made to account for the fact, that 
 although christians had in the Bible an infallible standard of reli- 
 gious truth, yet corruption soon began to show itself in the church, 
 and spread in various forms, until the pure and sim{>le gospel of 
 Christ was buried under a monstrous mass of error. The true 
 meaning of the Bible was not set before the understandings of the 
 people. The standard of truth was not applied to the regulation of 
 human opinions. And it is not at all surprising that men professing 
 Christianity, should hold unchristian sentiments, and pursue un- 
 clirislian practices. 
 
 '3. The next general cause of corruption was, ignorance of true 
 religion, and a predisposition to superstition. 'Jhe vvliole world 
 was divided into Christians, Jews aitd Pagans. Of the ignorance of 
 the two last classes none can entertain a doubt. As for christians, 
 they cannot be made well acquainted with their religion by a sum- 
 mary of faith, such as the Apostles' Creed as it is called. It is ne- 
 cessary that they should carefully study the Bible ; learn its true 
 meaning, and carry its doctrines and precepts to their understand- 
 ings and hearts. But the wretched system of allegorizing and mys- 
 tifying was much in vogue. The people understood the scriptures 
 poorly, many had not christian knowledge enough to banish entire- 
 ly from tlieir minds pagan notions, previously imbibed. But when 
 men have no well settled principles of religion, they are always 
 prone to superstition. And so it was with thousands who profess- 
 ed religion in former times. 
 
 These evils were greatly increased, when the northern barba- 
 rians made their irruption^Mnto the homan empire. These sava- 
 ges changed their religion without any change of heart; retained 
 their superstitious feelings, but directed them to new objects ; 
 drove before them the Caesars with all their legions, but trembled 
 in the presence of the prfests of the new religion. No state of 
 things could afford titter opportunities for designing men to prac- 
 tice on the people. 
 
 4. It has been before observed that when Christianity was intro- 
 duced into the world, it every where found some form of religion 
 or other established by law. The uncompromising spirit of chri?- 
 
;:di Review of ISis/iop liavenscroft's Vindication and Defaur. 
 
 tianity, soon drew down on itself severe and bloody persecution. 
 This was renewed in several successive centuries. The church, 
 however, was like the bush which Moses saw in the wilderness ; in 
 flames, yet unconsuraed. It grew and spread in spite of all oppo- 
 sition. At length it became so numerous and powerful, that an 
 ambitious man thought it would serve his purposes to di.splace hea- 
 thenism as the religion of the state, and employ Christianity in its 
 room. This, however, was not done, until the church had learned 
 by sore experience what power was posj^essed by a religion con- 
 nected with the government. This experience, acquired under 
 persecutions rai.^ed by the established religion of the Roman em- 
 pire, may, then, be set down among the causes of the corruption of 
 Christianity. It made the church willing to form a very injurious 
 connexion with the worhl. 
 
 5. This leads us to state as another cause of corruption, the es- 
 tablishment of Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire, in 
 place of heathenism. 'J'he state was bound not only to protect but 
 support this new ally. I'he ministers of Clirist then found them- 
 selves in courts and palaces, the counsellors of royalty ; wealth 
 and honour were poured on them instead of poverty and reproach. 
 Ambitious and corrupt men were tempted to seek the ofhces of 
 christian bishops, and the whole church felt the change. About 
 this time, too, great divisions took place among christians. The 
 wrong principles of interpretation, of which we spoke before, had 
 destroyed the simplicity of the gospel. It was perverted by a mis- 
 named philosophy, as well as by strained allegories, and extrava- 
 gant spiritualizing. Men undertook, for instance, to decide on the 
 person of Christ by reasoning, and not by the plain facts recorded 
 in scripture. The sublilties of logic were opposed by expositions 
 of scripture, which could satisfy no one. Great heats and violent 
 contentions arose. The Arian faction nearly divided the church. 
 Civil rulers entered into these disputes. The edicts of emperors 
 decided theological controversies. Every effort was made by both 
 orthodox and heretics to gain the Ruler to their side. Some- 
 times one party prevaiU;d and soinetime.s the other. The intrigue, 
 the tlattery and corruption of the court were found in tiip church. 
 In four centuries a most ftMrful change had taken place in the pure 
 and benevolent religion of Christ. 
 
 But all this did not occur without a considerable change in the 
 form of the church. In the beginning, religious societies liad been 
 established in the citie.«, and "Elders ordained in every church ;" 
 whose simple business was to te.ich the'^iuths of ch-rlstianity, and 
 persuade men to live holy lives. When the number of christians 
 was too great for them to meet in one place, several pastors or 
 bishops were appointefl for their spiritual instruction, as was the 
 cjse at Philippi and at Ephesus. As Christianity grew, the church- 
 es were enlarged, and the influence of the pastors increased. And 
 the changes of which we have spoken, gave opportunities of which 
 they were not slow to avail them.selves. 'Jhen it was, that extrav- 
 agant pretensions vveie put in, and urged with great perseverance 
 and policy. The teachers of Christianity saw that wealth and pow- 
 
Heviexv of Bishop Ravcnscroft^s Vindicaiion and Defence. 27 
 
 ei- were within their reach. Ignorance of true religion and super- 
 stition opened the way for them, and they found it easy to invent 
 phiusible reasons, and produce authorities to justify their claims : 
 tradition and the licentious interpretation of scripture afforded 
 ample means for proving every thing that could be desired. For, 
 instance, Jesus Christ, as we have seen, employed the apostles to 
 complete the organization of the church. They acted for him, and 
 authoritatively announced his will. The aspiring pastors pretend- 
 ed that they had succeeded to the apostolical office, and possessed 
 apostolical authority. 
 
 This step prepared the way for another. The apostles by their 
 extraordinary endowments, were enabled to make decisions which 
 should bind the conscience. The spirit of Christ spake through 
 them. They vvho claimed the succession, asserted similar authori- 
 ty ; they had received apostolical" traditions ; the scriptures were 
 committed to them lo be expounded to the people ; and it was the 
 business of the people to receive the law, at the hands of Christ's 
 ambassadors. 
 
 The next step in this usurpation, was to claim the priesthood. 
 This was done by applying to the church and its ministers, the 
 language of the Old Testament respecting the Theocracy, and the 
 abolished service of the Temple. In this vvay, the ignorant and su- 
 perstitious multitude were made to believe that their preachers 
 were appointed to offer services to God on their behalf, which 
 were acceptable, because they who officiated bore the priestly of- 
 fice. 
 
 This was particularly the case in regard to the rites of the 
 church. They were made effic;icious in conferring grace, by vir- 
 tue of some peculiar authority vested in the priesthood ; and gave 
 assurance of salvation because they were administered by men duly 
 authorized. * 
 
 The possession of this enormous power was one of the most 
 mighty causes of corruption. The clergy having once obtained it, 
 set themselves to the utmost to preserve and enlarge it. They 
 wrested from the people the right, acknowledged and enjoyed in 
 the beginning of choosing their church officers, and claimed this as 
 a part of their prerogative. At length the clergy held and taught 
 that they were the church, and possessed in themselves all the pow- 
 ers, rights, privileges, and prerogatives, which God had given to his 
 people. As for the Laity, they had nothing to do, but believe what 
 their priests taught, perform what they enjoined, and suffer what 
 they chose to inflict : and then these authorized agents of heaven 
 would give them, by means of the sacraments, assurance of sal- 
 vation. 
 
 This general sketch of the church may afford some assistance to 
 the students of Ecclesiastical History. Let them, with a reference 
 to this subject study the records of the church, and they will find 
 that, 
 
 1. When the organization of the christian society was completed 
 by the Apostles and their assistants, the church, as to its political 
 form, naas a Republic. 
 
 4 
 
^18 Review of Bishop Ravenscrqft^s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 2. In process of time, under the influence of such causes as 
 have been stated, it was gradually chaiigcd into an Aristocracy. 
 
 3. This first step paved the way for another, and the govern- 
 ment of the church became Monarchial. 
 
 4. The power of this monarchy was augmented by increasing 
 ignorance and corruption, until there was beheld a most frightful 
 Despotism, treading on the necks of kings, and binding in chains 
 the subdued and degraded nations of the christian world. 
 
 In comparing this most instructive portion of History with the 
 claims of high churchmen in the present day ; and the authorities 
 by which they support their pretensions, we are most forcibly 
 struck with numerous resemblances. There is a growth in our 
 population, which carries it far beyond the means of moral and re- 
 ligious improvement. There are thousands on thousands in our coun- 
 try, who have no fixed principles of religion ; and little more knowl- 
 edge of the real character of Christianity than the ancient Pagans. 
 They have never read the Bible, have never heard it truly expounded. 
 And while these things are so, there is a growing body of men 
 among us, who claim to be exclusively the true church of Christ ; 
 the only legitimate interpreters of scripture ; the successors of the 
 Apostles, the factors and attornies for heaven, divinely appointed 
 priests, authorized agents, alone empowered to give men assurance 
 of salvation. And, as though these monstrous claims were authen- 
 ticated by the seal of heaven, they vapour and strut before our 
 eyes, demanding with haughty air, and in arrogant terms, universal 
 acknowledgment of their dignity, and submission to their ecclesias- 
 tical authority. As for ourselves, it pleases us well to see men who 
 set up such extravagant pretensions, act so as, in the judgment of 
 all well instructed christians, to disprove their apostolical authority. 
 " Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
 them, and they that are great, exercise authority upon them : but 
 it shall not be so among you : but whosoever will be great among 
 you, let him be your minister ; and whosoever will be chief among 
 you, let him be your servant." Matt, xx, 25 — 27. But can the 
 reader fail to observe that these are precisely the pretensions set 
 up by the very men, who, in former ages, bore their part in cor- 
 rupting the church, and bringing in the abominations of popery ? 
 
 Again : when opposition is raised against these extravagancies, 
 the attempt is made to vindicate them by the'same means, that 
 were employed when the great corruption was going on. So the 
 church has always believed, taught, decreed — So say the fathers — 
 Such is the tradition. We shall take occasion to show some very 
 curious coincidences between our right reverend author, and some 
 of the ancient pretenders to apostolical powers and prerogatives, 
 before we have done with him. We only wish, in these introduc- 
 tory essays, to convince our readers of the very great importance 
 tind necessity of the work, which we have undertaken. With this 
 view we remark once more, 
 
 That as in former times there were men, who found their account 
 in admitting and supporting these high claims of the clergy. So it 
 is now. History has enabled us to judge very certainly of the mc- 
 
Review of Bishop Eavenscroft's Vindicalion and Defence. 29 
 
 tives of the laymen of other ages, who were willing instruments of 
 enlarging the power of the church. But we do not pretend to form 
 a judgment concerning our contemporaries. The fact is unques- 
 tionable ; be the motives what they may. It is confidently said, 
 too, that the most zealous upholders of high church prerogative 
 among the laity of our day, are not over-zealous for vital religion, 
 are not very careful to avoid profanity, to observe the Sabbath, to 
 attend the church, &;c. Do they want a religious factor to do the 
 business for them, and save them all the trouble ? Do they want 
 an aristocratic religion, which will distinguish them from the com- 
 mon people ? We pretend not to judge. But we will say that 
 when high church principles were first broached among us, we 
 thought that it was perfectly a work of supererogation to undertake 
 to oppose them ; that in this country, their very extravagance, their 
 opposition to the genius of all our political institutions, their obvious 
 tendencies would at once put them down. But they are growing. 
 Their influence is felt even by evangelical men. Young preachers, 
 who turned out warm-hearted and liberal, are gradually screwed 
 up to notions and feelings high enough to please a diocesan bishop. 
 We see these things and lament them. It is our duty to expose 
 the error, and give the warning. And as God may give us grace 
 to be faithful, none within the sphere of our labours shall go un- 
 warned. 
 
 We have shown by what means the controversy between us and 
 bishop Ravenscroft arose ; and how important to the purity of the 
 church, and to the general interests of society are the questions be- 
 tween us. We now proceed to the consideration of his book. It 
 is our purpose fully to try the strength of its arguments, and 
 show the tendency of its principles. 
 
 One eighth part of this ponderous pamphlet is occupied in what 
 the Prelate calls the " misrepresentations" of our Reviewer. 
 Through the whole of this part, vituperation is dealt out in no 
 measured phrase, and with no delicacy of language. We might 
 perhaps think it necessary to notice this offensive matter in the first 
 place, had not bishop R. been, before this, engaged in controversy. 
 The course pursued by him in former cases, has completely nulli- 
 fied the formidableness of his charges. This is one of the polemic 
 arts of the diocesan. We have read all his writings that have fallen 
 in our way ; and as far as we have seen, he never feels the pinch 
 of his antagonist's argument, without crying out, "misrepresenta- 
 tion, Sir!" No author, whom it has been our hap to peruse, so 
 completely lays himself open to just and severe criticism ; no one 
 so provokes attack. Hence it is, that ever and anon we hear the 
 same ungracious cry of, misrepresentation. In the newspaper pa- 
 ragraph, the pamphlet, and the dollar and a quarter volume (in blue 
 paper) it is forever the same monotonous yet discordant sound. For 
 proof of these remarks, we refer to the controversy between him 
 and Professor Mitchell of North Carolina, respecting the Bible So- 
 ciety. He there charges the Professor with a mutilation of private 
 letters which had previously passed between them ; with mutila- 
 tion and misrepresentation of authors quoted, particularly the cele- 
 
oU lleviexv of Bishop Raveiiscroft-s J'uLdicatioii and iJefenct. 
 
 brated Chillingnorth. The Professor publishes the letters entire, 
 and shows by ocular demonstration, that the parts which had been 
 previously omitted had no earthly connexion with the matters be- 
 fore the public. He publishes the bishop's (piolation from Chill- 
 ingworth, and proves in the same way, that a part of the passage, 
 which was intended for the very purpose of qualifying the nieaning 
 of the author had been omitted. 'I'his same passage has been 
 brought out against us, and we shall have to notice it hereafter. We 
 did suppose that the is^uo of this controversy, would have made the 
 bishop rather ashamed of his expedient : and when we heard the 
 note of preparation from the South, it was our hope to find some 
 amendment from the wholesome discipline which had been admin- 
 istered. But " zoe had mistaken our inan^ — And hope deceived ns I 
 
 These circumstances leave it entirely at our option, we think, 
 whether to notice his charges or not. Should it, in prosecution of 
 our design, appear likely to subserve the important purposes in 
 view, we shall animadvert on them ; otherwise not. Our Review- 
 er declares, that, as far as he is personally concerned in this affair, 
 he is not at all sorry at the course which the bishop has pursued. 
 He vvishes the controversy to attract public attention ; and the sub- 
 jects brought under discussion to be fully considered — And as he is 
 incapable of sny'iag piguant things of this sort, he has no grief on his 
 own account that the bishop has said them. In looking to see how 
 the Reviewer will answer them, many readers may find truths 
 which it will be well for them to know. Still however, he would 
 have been truly glad if this result could have been obtained, with- 
 out that imnecessary dereliction of the true Episcopal character, of 
 which the book before us affords so mortifying an example. 
 
 Our plan then is, in the first place, to bring un:ler review what 
 the author says respecting the Church ; after which his opinions re- 
 specting the Bible Society, and the Interpretation of Scripture will be 
 examined. We may i\\en^ perhaps, notice the subject of misrepre- 
 sentations and perversions of which we hear so much from the right 
 reverend author. But here we cannot help offering a general crit- 
 ical remark on this very extraordinary production. A considerable 
 part of its contents are by no means in harmony with the ojjicial 
 character, which is blazoned in capitals on its title page. The book 
 shows in many respects a want of familiarity with the appropriate 
 mode of conducting religious discussions, and surprising unacquain- 
 tance with ecclesi istical history. It puts one very much in mind 
 of the manner of a lawyer, who uniblc to make a sound leoal iirgu- 
 ment, browbeats the witnes>;es, and abuses his adversary. Whether 
 this internal evidence indicates any thing respecting tlie secret his- 
 tory of the composition of this work, we will not pretend even to 
 conjecture. The bishop certaiidy has a great deal on his hands, 
 and may often need assistance ; and lawyers, sometimes have 
 leisure — But we will not put our critical sagacity to hazard, by pur- 
 suing this subject any firther. 
 
 It is on the 21st page of his book, that the writer comes to con- 
 sider the objections made by the Reviewer to certain points ofdoc- 
 trine laid down in the Farewell and Convention Sermons. He de- 
 
Iteviexv of Bishop llavenscrqfV s Vindication and Defence. 3 1 
 
 Glares that the matter of each of these discourses was well consid- 
 ered, and uttered under a deep sense of the responsibility of his 
 ministerial character. Notice is then taken of a remark in the Re- 
 view, respecting the injury likely to be done by the fierce spirit 
 ofcontention breathed into these discourses ; after which the writer 
 permits himself to say, 
 
 " But as presbyterianism and Christianity are not synonimous, at least in 
 my judgment, and vvliitt may be considered injurious to the former, may 
 nevertheless be innocuous, if not helpful, to the latter, 1 trust to stand excus- 
 ed for venturing to dispute so strong an assertion, and for exposing the fal- 
 lacies with which it is endeavoured to be supported. In your June No. p. 
 301, you ohsirve — 
 
 " ' In our Southern country, subjects of tiiis kind have been so little dis- 
 cussed, that the great body of the people have no ideas of their true bearing, 
 or of the manner in which they affect tlieir vital interests.' 
 
 " Most true sir, and as you doubtless know in whose hands the religious 
 instruction oi' the southern people, has, almost exclusively, been, for the 
 last forty or fifty years, perliaps you can tell the reason, why subjects of 
 this kind, have been witliheld from public discussion. But for this very 
 reason, and because he deems them vital stibjects ^nd -dWecilng vitali?iterests 
 did Bishop Ravenscroft feel it his bounden duty, to present them to those 
 more particularly under iiis cliarge, and eventually to the public. And most 
 unquestionably, if they are oftiiis important description, and the people 
 have 710 ideas of their true bearing, it is high time that their attention should 
 be called to them, and every way reasonable, that Bishop R. should stand 
 justified for discarding that false tenderness to the feelings of others, which 
 had l)een instrumental in keeping back these fundamental doctrines from 
 the edification of the pulpit." 
 
 On this we observe in the first place, that not a single syllable in 
 the Review indicates that its special object was to defend Presbyte- 
 rianism. The Reviewer, indeed, counts it his honour to belong to 
 that denomination of Christians : not because they are smiled on by 
 the great, or followed by the multitude. But because, although 
 suspected, feared' misunderstood, and reproached as they are, they 
 hold the gospel m its simplicity ; are the true and staunch friends 
 of learning and science, of civil and religious liberty ; and practise 
 that liberality of which others boast. But with these sentiments, 
 the Reviewer never thought of identifying Presbyterianism with 
 Christianity. And if bishop R. does so in regard to his own Soci- 
 ety, the Reviewer is happy in having this opportunity of differing 
 from him. There would, he is free to admit, be a church, and true 
 Christians, if there was not a Presbyterian in the world. So too, if 
 there were not an Episcopalian in the world. The Reviewer, in- 
 deed, never will wiirink from a defence of the Presbyterian church, 
 when railed to lh.it service, but in the articles which awakened the 
 wrath of the Prelate, his object was to vindicate the cause of christian 
 charily and brotherly love, assailed as it was by hands that ought to 
 have been stfeti bed out in its defence. 
 
 In the next place our right reverend polemic seems to reproach 
 us for the fact that subjects of church order and polity have been so 
 little discussed in the southern country, for the last forty or fifty 
 years. We know that some think we have been to blame for our 
 reserve on these subjects. Certainly, we have exhibited exempla- 
 ry caution and moderation. But it was very ungrateful in bishop R, 
 
32 Review of Bishop Ravenscrqft's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 to reproach us for it. There was a time, when the hostihty of 
 Presbyterianism would have been deeply felt by the Episcopal 
 church. Such hostihty, however, has never existed, except in the 
 heated imaginations of such men as our author. 
 
 It seems necessary here, to state more fully than we have done, 
 the object of our Reviewer in the papers which have awakened 
 so bitter a spirit, and called forth such violent reproaches. — Bishop 
 R. had, in strong terms, denounced all non-episcopalians, as schis- 
 matics. He disowned them as brethren, and wished to persuade 
 all Episcopalians to disown them too. They are out of the church ; 
 and cannot be acknowledged as fellow-christians. If he is right, all 
 communion between other christians and the denomination to which 
 he belongs, ought to be broken up at once and forever. Now we 
 venture to say, that it is impossible for an impartial reader to es- 
 amine these Reviews, without perceiving that the leading object of 
 the writer was to prevent this effect ; to prevent the iacrease of 
 bigotry and intolerance, of sectarian zeal and polemic fury in our 
 happy country. And this he hoped to accomplish, by showing that 
 the differences between Episcopalians and other evangelical denom- 
 inations do not enter into the essential character of the church : 
 that they are points, about which good men and sincere christians 
 may differ, and yet walk together in love. It was declared again 
 and again that the Reviewer had no quarrel with Episcopalians ; 
 and on the assumption that they can, in conformity with their modes 
 and forms, and peculiar doctrines, best make their way to heaven, 
 he cordially bade them " God speed,'' and prayed that grace, 
 mercy and peace, might be multiplied to them. — It is the design 
 above stated, which has been construed into a fierce and malignant 
 hostility to the Episcopal church, which seeks its gratification by 
 means the most ''base audjlagitious ;^' by wilful misrepresentation 
 and notorious fiilsehood ! To such terms as these we have nothing 
 to say — We feel nothing but pity for the clergyman who can allow 
 himself to use them. 
 
 Our language to Episcopalians is unchanged. If you choose to 
 live under diocesan bishops, and to use (he forms of the book of 
 common prayer, — be it so! But we do not believe that this is best 
 for us: we can find nothing in the word of God, to oblige us to 
 adopt the same system of church government and modes of worship; 
 in a word, we think that these things are additions to the simplicity 
 of the gospel; but let us not make them terms of communion. We 
 agree in fundamental points; let us exercise mutual charity, in re- 
 lation to subordinate concerns, and walk together in love. — But 
 here interposes bishop R., and vehemently affirms that these are 
 not subordinate concerns, they are vital; they are essential to the 
 very being of a church, and to the best hopes of mEfn. And this 
 is the very git of the controversy between us. 
 
 In the remark quoted in our Review, we had said, that for want 
 of discussion, the people have no idea of the true bearing of these 
 subjects, and of the manner in which they affect their vital inter- 
 ests. The bistiop seems to think that this very reason justifies the 
 course which he has pursued. He thinks them vital subjects, and 
 
Seview of Bishop Ilavenscroft's Vindication and Defence, 33 
 
 affecting "vital interests,^' and therefore felt it his duty to bring 
 them before the public. — What is this, but a declaration of hi? be- 
 lief that the hope of man for heaven depends on his connexion with 
 the Episcopal church? This we admit is a proof of the good gen- 
 tleman's sincerity, but none at all of the soundness of his opinions. 
 And the very thing for which we blame him is that he does hold 
 such opinions. If they are wrong, as we expect to prove before 
 we are done with the subject, he cannot be right in holding them, 
 nor does the sincerity of his belief at all justify him. 
 
 But what interests we meant, is clear enough from the context. — - 
 We spoke of the Bible Society, of the right of private judgment, of 
 religious liberty, as vital interests — Are not these of sufficient im- 
 portance to be called vital? The bearing of bishop R's. opinions on 
 high matters of this kind, we affirmed was not understood. And 
 truly it is so. Even many of our most intelligent men have so ne- 
 glected the study of Ecclesiastical History, as not to perceive the 
 natural tendency of these doctrines. They do not see that if the 
 claims of the Church (according to the bishop's nomenclature) should 
 be granted in all their extent, nothing but a religious establishment 
 could prevent ecclesiastical power from becoming supreme in the 
 nation. We declared that bishop R. did not himself see the conse- 
 quences of his own opinions. We are more than ever confirmed 
 in this opinion. The work now under review affords most con» 
 vincing evidence that the writer is no adept in ecclesiastical history; 
 that he has studied only one side of his subject, using too the aid of 
 none but partisan writers; and that passion and prejudice have 
 greatly blinded his understanding. His unparalleled confidence may 
 possibly mislead the ignorant; but it will surprise the learned: the 
 vehemence of his style may overpower the feeble minded; but 
 men of true discernment will recognise the impetuosity of passion, 
 where they expected the force of argument. 
 
 We have stated the most important point of the controversj'; but it 
 is necessary to bring this matter forward more distinctly, or this dis. 
 cussion can never be closed. It is certain that the bishop has sadly 
 mistaken our positions; otherwise, pressed as he is by various and 
 important concerns, he would have spared himself much unneces- 
 sary writing. 
 
 Bishop R, has chosen so to construct his work, that our readers 
 need to be informed what are not the matters in dispute between us. 
 
 We do not, we never did, we never could deny the divine origin^ 
 the covenant relation, the sameness in every age, the unity of the 
 church, nor the divine appointment of the christian ministry. On 
 the contrary, we maintain all these truths, with as much zeal and 
 consistency as Bishop Ravenscroft; though we thank heaven, with 
 a very different spirit. We do not, indeed, admit that the sameness, 
 or the unity of the church consists in what he supposes it does: we 
 do not believe that the purpose and powers of the christian miniS' 
 try are what he imagines them to be. 
 
 As to the sameness of the church, we confess ourselves at a loss to 
 determine precisely what the bishop thinks. In his manner of con- 
 ducting an argument he drive? on withsuch Jehu-like vehemence as to 
 
34 Review of Bishop Ravcnscrqft^ 8 Vindication and Defence. 
 
 keep himself continually in a cloud of dust, often we lose sight of him 
 altogether. He had, with peculiar infelicity, affirmed that the dis- 
 pensations under the Old and New Testaments were identical. We 
 showed beyond a doubt that this could not be so, unless different 
 dispensations could be the same. On this subject the bishop thus 
 expresses himself. 
 
 "Is the word identity never used in the sense of sameness oragreement — 
 not diverse, or implying diversity in the sense of opposition ? and in this 
 most common use of the word, is there not an identity of origin, of design 
 and of end in the two dispensations ? Do you design to insinuate into the 
 minds of your readers — that either the parties, tlie purpose, or the means 
 have been so changed — tliat the opposite of identity, can justly be affirmed, 
 of either to the other ? If so — and I see not what else you can have in 
 view — It would be a more manly part to speak it out, and let the public see 
 at once, how much of the unity of revealed trutli, as well as of the visible 
 church, must be surrendered, to sustain the great Diana of parity ? This 
 sir is no trifling point — though it is so little thought of and applied by chris- 
 tians and christian teachers of the present day. I therefore askyou again — 
 Is not the New Testament dispensation of the grace of God to the world — in 
 such wise connected with, and perfective of the Old Testament dispensation 
 of the same grace — as could with no truth be affirmed of them, were they not 
 identical, in the sense of implying the same thing ? And if tliis sliall be the 
 judgment of all sound, impartial, and informed christians; what must be 
 thought of the vicious reasoning resorted to, by you on this subject — in order 
 to fasten upon me the absurdity of asserting tliat the sliadow and the sub- 
 stance are the same identically, which is no where affirmed." 
 
 This passage would afford room for much amusing remark, if on 
 so grave a subject, we might seek for amusement. But as this 
 would be rather out of place, we only say here, that we will give a 
 copy of our Review, when finished, to any man who will make for 
 us a literal translation of this quotation into another language, Latin 
 or Greek, French or Italian, if the bishop were not too busy, it 
 would be a profitable exercise for him.-ielf. How. for instance, 
 will the first clause be put into Latin? "Is the ivord identity never 
 used in the sense of sameness,'''' &c. Is it not obvious that the ques- 
 tion amounts precisely to this, Is the vvord identity never used in 
 the sense of identity? But it is vain t«) hope that the philology of 
 the bishop will ever be improved. We advert to the subject for the 
 sake of remarking that if there is any thins distinctly to be gathered 
 from the passage quoted, it amounts to this, that the identity of the 
 church is such, that it admits of various changes without the des- 
 truction of that identity. And this is precisely the general princi- 
 ple for which we contend. Indeed it is impossible to state the 
 proposition, the church is the same under different dispensations., 
 without this admission. The bishop's mistake was, the confounding 
 of c/mrc/t and dispensation in a way very strange for a man who un- 
 dertakes to write about the church. The use of all this will appear 
 hereafter. 
 
 The general doctrine maintained by us, in relation to the same- 
 ness of the church is this: — 
 
 "The visible church is a congregation of faithful men, in the 
 which the pure word of God is preached, and tlie sacraments be 
 duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance in all those things 
 that of necessity are requisite to the same." Let this definition be 
 
Meview of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 55 
 
 extended so as to embrace all congregations in which the pure 
 word is preached, &;c., and we are perfectly ready to accept it as 
 our definition. Now this church is the same under every dispensa- 
 tion, because under all the forms which have prevailed, whether 
 patriarchal, Jewish, or christian, the same system of truth has been 
 proposed; the same plan of salvation unfolded. The only difference, 
 in this respect, arises from the diflerent degrees of information 
 communicated in different ages. But as to the external forms, b}' 
 which this truth is made known, and (as means) applied to the un- 
 derstanding and conscience, God has not confined himself to them; 
 nor made them essential to the real existence of the church, or to 
 the efficiency of his truth. In the spirit of this observation, we 
 find ourselves fully supported by the Apostle Paul, Rom. ii, 25 — 29. 
 •' For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou 
 be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is madeuncircumcision. — 
 Therefore, if the uncircumcision (the uncircumcised person) keep 
 the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted 
 for circumcision?" &;c. Now if we understand bishop R. he says. 
 No! If the man is uncircumcised, no matter what he believes or 
 does, he is so out of the covenant, that he has no right to hope for 
 the mercy of God. 
 
 But he goes farther, and maintains that a particular external 
 form of the church, is essential to its very being ; and that a pres- 
 cribed mode of administration is necessary to give validity to every 
 ordinance, and assurance of spiritual blessings to the receiver. 
 This prescription includes, as we understand, in every case the 
 person who administers, as well as the ordinance administered. 
 
 "Suppose Lot had been desirous to partake of the privileges, blessings 
 and promises made over to his kinsman, and in consequence of this desire, 
 had applied to Melchisedeck to affix the appropriate seal, and he had done 
 so. Would this have availed Lot, and conferred a title to the blessings of 
 that covenant ? Could any persuasion of his own mind, or any reasonings 
 of others, or any holiness in the administrator, have supplied the defect of 
 divine warrant to perform the act ? Surely there can be but one answer to 
 these questions." 
 
 Now our object was to prove that, according to the scriptures, 
 and the plain reason of the case, the church of God was not thus 
 limited, its sameness does not depend on these outward things, and 
 we are obliged to our author for helping our argument by referring 
 to the case of circumcision. We ask in reply to the case stated in 
 the quotation, who regularly administered circumcision in the 
 Jewish Church ? Who, for instance, circumcised the child of 
 Moses, Exod. iv, 24 — 26? Was that child out of the covenant, 
 because the operation was performed by the mother ? Where is 
 the law prescribing the person who should perform this rite ? We 
 also ask, what was the condition of all the Jews born in the wilder- 
 ness, since it appears that there was no circumcision from the time 
 of the departure out of Egypt, until the entrance into Canaan ? 
 Joshua V, 5. 
 
 It is evident that the design of our Remarks, in relation to the 
 unchangeable character of the church were not understood by the 
 bishop ; and we shall here endeavour to show their relevancy. 
 5 
 
36 Meview of Bishop Ravenscroft*s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Some of our readers know, and all ought to know that bishop R, 
 connects, the sameness of the church with the ministry. The 
 Presbyterian Church is not of the same body with the Episcopal 
 Church, because the former has not the same order in the christian 
 ministry with the latter ; the former owns no distinctions among the 
 ministers of the gospel ; while the latter holds three orders. And 
 this is one reason why the bishop regards them as societies so dis- 
 tinct, that one is the church, and the other is not. 
 
 Now in a review prepared for a monthly magazine, we could not 
 enter fully into any one of the numerous errors advanced by the 
 bishop ; and therefore were constrained to offer general remarks, 
 which would let the reader see that our prelate's opinions were un- 
 tenable. It has always been, we repeat, our full conviction that the 
 unchangeable character of the church depends on the unchangeable 
 system of truth revealed by God. In support of this opinion, though 
 not formally announced in the review, we adverted to the changes 
 which have taken place under different dispensations, while the 
 church continues the same — identically the same, in every thing 
 necessary to constitute it a church. 
 
 Besides, we constructed what we regarded as a good argumen- 
 turn ad hominem, [an argument best suited to convince bad logicians 
 we admit,] by which we hoped to make the bishop feel his error. 
 It amounts to about this. Besides the point, stated above, respect- 
 ing the ministry, the Episcopalians differ from Dissente7-s, in a vari- 
 ety of particulars, which, according to the 39 articles, the church 
 has a right to change according to circumstances. These are, the 
 iranner of public prayer; sponsors, the sign of the cross, the mode 
 of applying water in baptism ; kneeling at the Lord's table ; conse- 
 cration of churches ; prescription of clerical vestments. Besides 
 these, there is in use among them an ecclesiastical rite, which they 
 call confirmation, and hold to be necessary, before one partakes of 
 the holy communion. All these points of difference, we remarked, 
 have been superadded by Episcopalians to the institution of Christ. 
 Bishop R. admits that they are, confirmation excepted, "decent ce- 
 remonials, charigeahle according to circumstances.'''' (pa. 25.) Now 
 some of these are slight matters in comparison with others. But we 
 may assume them all to be more or less important. We advert to 
 the manner in which the church addresses God in prayer, as a sub- 
 ject of very great interest. The mode of administering the sacra- 
 ments as seals of God's covenanted mercies ought not to be regard- 
 ed as trivial. But if God has left such matters as these to the dis- 
 cretion of the church, does it not afford a very strong presumption, 
 to say the least, that the difference between presbyterial ordination, 
 for instance, and episcopal orders is not essential to the truth and 
 l-eal existence of the church. Or, to put the case in a still strong- 
 er point of light, if God has by the confession of Episcopalians, left 
 such matters as these to the discretion of the church, can it be be- 
 lieved, without express declarations of scripture, that the hopes of 
 man for eternity are connected with the episcopal orders. The 
 identity of the church surely is not so connected with this subject, 
 as to nullify the ecclesiastical character of all associations of be- 
 lieTers, who are not under a diocesan bishop. 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscrojt's Vindication and Deftnce. 57 
 
 Our objections, then, are not "as irrelevant to the subject as can 
 be conceived." The bishop did not take the trouble to consider the 
 object in view, and he thought (hat his assertion was enough for his 
 readers. Or perhaps his passion would not permit him to see. — 
 That he was in anger, is manifest from the language which he per- 
 mits himself to use. Speaking of these ^^primitive, orderly and edi' 
 fying* ceremonials,''^ he says, " Do you not know, that these stum- 
 bling blocks to the pride of Presbytery, these bug-bears to the spirit- 
 ual pride of deluded fanatics, are decreed and practised, as primi- 
 tive, orderly, and edifying ceremonials," &c. — It must be confessed 
 that there is a right handsome alliteration in the phrase, "Pride of 
 Presbytery !" But ought a man who lives in a glass-house to throw 
 stones ? There is too something very lofty in ; '■'tliese bug-bears to 
 the spiritual pride o{ ignorant and deluded fanatics.^'' But why, 
 bug-bears? We profess not to know ; we are able however to tell 
 the bishop, that men are fanatical on more than one subject. They 
 may rage and rave about church order, just as wildly as a Chrystian 
 in his highest camp-meeting frenzies rages about inspiration. After 
 the question just recited, the author goes on to put some others, 
 which call for some attention, although they carry us from the sub- 
 ject immediately in hand. 
 
 "Where have you ever heard or read, that they are held as the essence of 
 religion, and grounds for rejecting from communion, and christian fellow^ 
 ship any deiTomuiation of christians episcopally constituted ? How often 
 have you yourself, who certainly do not hold or use them, received the holy 
 communion from episcopal hands ? How often haWe you been told, that the 
 reason why they cannot in return receive at your hands is, not that you do 
 not use forms of prayer, and sponsors in baptism, &c. &c. but because they 
 believe in their consciences, that you have no authority to administer ? Why 
 then commit yourself against such plain truth, and give such just cause to 
 say, that you write to mislead ? And as the subject I am upon suggests it, 
 let me ask you further ; if you can receive the communion once from epis- 
 copal hands, with a good conscience, wliy not always ? What possible justi- 
 fication can there be, for separation from a communion, which you can par- 
 take of with a good conscience ? Are the rites and ceremonies of the 
 church which you decry so bitterly, in such sort sinful, as to warrant 
 breach of communion ? Are they in any respect, contrary to the love of 
 God, or to the law of man ? If not, how can they touch the conscience ? 
 They may indeed offend the pride, prejudice and caprice of unreasonable 
 or contentious men, but they cannot touch the conscience, in any just 
 sense of that much abused word ; or furnish an excuse for rending the 
 body of Christ." 
 
 As to the first question here proposed, we reply by asking ano- 
 ther, what would bishop R. do with one of his presbyters, who 
 should in his ministrations, refuse to administer according to the ru- 
 brics? — Perhaps some people in North Carolina can help him to an 
 answer. Or would he administer the holy communion to a person 
 who should refuse to kneel at the Lord's table ? 
 
 *NoTE. How edifying these are, we are yet to learn. Sure we are, that 
 priestly and episcopal vestments never gave us any instruction ; we know 
 that they have greatly excited the surprise of children ! The Sign of the 
 Cross, made by the priest on the child's forehead, has always struck us as a 
 Catholic Superstition. But they are primitive. — How does the bishop know 
 this ? Did the Apostles consecrate churches, wear episcopal habits, make 
 the sign of the cross, &c. Wc want much to know how far this word primi- 
 tivs extends. 
 
38 Jieview of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 As to the personal matter here urged on the Reviewer, he an- 
 swers frankly, that he had no hesitation nor scruple to receive the 
 communion from '^episcopal hands ;"* until he plainly enough un- 
 derstood that " episcopal hatids''^ would not receive of him : — that is, 
 that episcopalians separated themselves from all other denomina- 
 tions, denying their church-membership, their ordination, and the 
 validity of all their administrations. We knew, indeed, that this 
 was the way of high-churchmen : but we supposed that evangelical 
 clergymen entertained better views of this subject. We were 
 strengthened in this opinion, by knowing the fact, that some episco- 
 pal clergymen did commune with other denominations. But it was 
 soon ascertained that things were to be so no longer. 
 
 According to the old bad Latin proverb, noviis rex novus Iex,'\ 
 And the Reviewer, after much serious deliberation, determined no 
 longer to receive the communion from Episcopal hands, because, in 
 his judgment, Episcopal practice in this case is schismatical. It is 
 an eflfectual rending of the body of Christ. It is a separation of 
 Christians from one another, on account of matters, which, so far 
 from being essential to the being of the church, have never, in 
 any age, conduced to its purity. The spirit of the Episcopal 
 church in this day, would have been regarded as schismatical by 
 the fathers and reformers of the Church of England. For they did 
 acknowledge the foreign Protestants, as branches of the church of 
 Christ; and they did not, by the 1 9th Article, mean to exclude 
 them from the body of God's covenanted people. Bishop R. says 
 that these are gratuitous assertions, because we did hot bring for- 
 ward our proofs. We thought that there could be no necessity of 
 proving such well knonm historical facts, to readers for whose bene- 
 fit we wrote. We would not assume so great ignorance in them. 
 And, now, we cannot hope to add much to the knowledge of those, 
 who, because they have received the Episcopal spirit, think that 
 they know all things. But we mean hereafter to treat this subject 
 in such a way, that bishop R. shall be sorry for having compelled 
 us to take it up. At present we content ourselves with repeating 
 our well considered assertion that the Reformers of the Church of 
 England did acknowledge foreign Protestants as members of the 
 church of Christ. But we wish it to be distinctly understood, that 
 the only concern we have on this subject arises from the regard 
 ivhich we entertain for the names of those great and good men, and 
 our solicitude for the honour of the christian religion. We cherish 
 the memory of such men as Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and their 
 fellow labourers, we reverence their virtues, and are willing that 
 their errors should be covered with the mantle of charity. But if 
 they had laid the stress on the distinctive characters of Episcopacy, 
 which high churchmen do in this country, it would not weigh a 
 feather with us. With the word of God in our hands, and speaking 
 plainly for us, the world against us is nothing. We do know, how- 
 ever, that the successors of the English Reformers have lost their 
 spirit ; and at this day, they separate themselves from the great 
 
 *Episcopal hands here are the hands of a bishop. 
 jit is about as good, however, as the bishop's *'fast est ab hoste doceve."^ 
 
Review of Bishop Kavenscrojt's ViniUcalion and Defence- 39 
 
 body of Protestants throughout the world. In the U. States Episcopa- 
 'lians are comparatively a small minority. Their ministers do not 
 make a tenth part of the clergy of the country. In Gt. Britain, they 
 do not make a large majority. Indeed we conjecture that, taking 
 in the Church of Scotland, the Presbyterian and Independent Dis- 
 senters from that church, and the Orthodox Dissenters in England, 
 the number of communicants among them, would exceed those who 
 frequent the altars of the established church. And among foreign 
 Protestants, comparatively very few admit Episcopacy to be a dis- 
 tinct order. Chiefly, then, on account of the mere matter of orrfer^. 
 Episcopalian? cut off from the church of God, and all its covenant- 
 ed mercies, and all its precious hopes, this gre-.it body of Protes- 
 tants. They separate themselves from this communion of saints, 
 and cast them off from christian fellowship. If this is not schismat- 
 ical conduct, we do not know what schism is. After coming to this 
 conclusion, we could not any longer receive the communion from 
 " Episcopal hands." We do not indeed renounce brotherhood 
 with them. We only refuse to give countenance to this lamentable 
 error. But bishop K. deceives himself most deplorably, if he sup-, 
 poses that our anxiety on this subject arises from any desire to find 
 support for our system, from Episcopal concessions. We have not 
 the shadow of a doubt respecting, the validity of our ordination. — 
 And the testimony of all who "■ add right reverend (o their honour- 
 ed names," throughout the whole world would not add a little of 
 strength to our conviction that we have just as perfect a right to 
 preach and administer ordinances as bishop R. or the Archbishop 
 of Canterbury. But we wish to wipe away the standing reproach 
 of Christianity ; and to let the world see, by the harmony and bro- 
 therly love of christians, exhibited under differences in unessential 
 matters, the true genius of our religion. We are, for this reason, 
 and this only, truly desirous that our brethren should let down their 
 high pretensions, but until the} do this, we cannot consent to ap- 
 pear before the public to admit their claims. And now, as minis- 
 ters of the Lord Jesus, we solemnly warn and exhort bishop R. and 
 all who think with him to consider, whether the charge, which, 
 often in bitter terms, they bring against non-episcopalians, and the 
 denunciations, which they fear not to utter against them, may not 
 return on their own souls in another day, when the great Head of 
 the Church will make it appear before the universe, how little 
 value he places on matters merely externa!, and how highly he 
 values that love, which is the fultilling ofthe law. Why will they 
 not learn, that the great end of truth, is to mould men into the like- 
 ness of heaven ; to awaken feelings and prompt to actions corres- 
 ponding to its own pure and celestial character ; that the mode of 
 its conveyance to the understanding and the heart, whether by t'he 
 ** lawn robed Prelate, or plain Presbyter," is a matter of no con- 
 sideration with that holy Being, who looks at the inner man ? Why 
 will they attempt to persuade (he people, that it is not the deep re- 
 pentance, the lively faith, the warm-hearted charity, the fervent 
 piety only ofthe humble communicant, which warrant the hope of 
 divine acceptance, but also this other circumstance that the symbols 
 of a Saviour's love are distributed by a man, on whose head n 
 
40 Review of Bishop Savensa'oft's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Bishop has laid his hands ? We do maintain, that it is the holding oi" 
 the same great system of truth, which constitutes the same church, 
 under every dispensation, and with every variety of external form. 
 We proceed, according to the method formerly indicated, to ob- 
 serve, that the unity of the church does not consist in what bishop 
 R. supposes. He maintains it to be " unity of faith and of order ;'■ 
 and in the term order he includes the ministry of the gospel with 
 all its administrations. But as all christian societies have their 
 ministry, and their ordinances, bishop R. must mean by order, what 
 we commonly call the Episco[)al ministry. He holds, then, that a 
 succession of diocesan bishops from the days of the Apostles to the 
 present time, with the two orders of priests and deacons under them, 
 is necessary to the unity of the church; and that all who are sepa- 
 rated from a ministry precisely of this character, are separated 
 from the church and the covenanted mercies of God. But let the 
 prelate speak for himself. 
 
 " To bring this vital subject however, in some definite shape — and you to 
 your answer; I ask, on wliat possible principle, is the divine unity of tlie 
 church of Christ, reconcileable with the existing state of the christian world: 
 Are all the varieties of religious profession throughout Christendom, true 
 branches of the true church — the one spouse and body of Christ — or, only 
 some of them ? Will you answer this plainly and directly, and give us the 
 grounds and reasons of your determination, whatever it may be, that we 
 may know the extent of that fraternity, which modern Presbyterians mani- 
 fest for Congregationalists, Independents, Methodists, Baptists, Sec. &c. — and 
 may also learn, if it can be communicated, how separation and exclusion, are 
 transformed into union and fellowship ? In what does the unity of the 
 visible church consist according to your view of it ? Is it in agreement in 
 faith and order, or of faith singly, or order singly ? If the unity of the church 
 is not to be referred ultimately, to the authority of Christ, originally lodged 
 with his Apostles, as the root — to what is it td he referred ? Is there another 
 principle or root of unity, as a divine character or mark of the church of 
 Christ, which is equally verifiable and conclusive, in all ages, and by all ca- 
 pacities of men ? If there be, let us have it, plain and direct. 
 
 " Here, sir, is the dividing line between us —it is the point which involves 
 all the rest, as you well know, and decides the momentous question, of church 
 or no church, in a divided christian world. And I have put it thus directly, 
 that by the answer given, my ignorance of the subject may be edified, oi* 
 the delusion spread over the dissenting community of christians, may be re- 
 moved." 
 
 He then says, in his own peculiar manner, " Sir, my principles 
 are open and avowed — I have no purpose of concealment or deceit 
 to answer. If your principles are of the same character, you will 
 meet these questions with the frank and fearless spirit of the man, 
 who is sincere in what he holds, and who knows that he must be a 
 gainer by the establishment of truth." — As to the insinuations, the 
 egotism, and the boastful spirit of this passage, we have not a wOrd 
 to say — as to the questions, so far as we understand them, we hate 
 answers prompt and decisive. 
 
 The Unity of the Church, then, let all bishops know, consists 
 essentially in that which constitutes her identity, unity of doctrine 
 in matters necessary to salvation. But this answer requires consid- 
 erable amplification. That all doctrine is not fundamental, is too 
 generally admitted to allow of any controyersy. It is conceded that 
 
Meviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence, 4i 
 
 men may differ as to a number of particulars, and yet be true be=» 
 lievers in Jesus Christ, and heirs of salvation. For instance, there 
 was doubtless a difference of opinion in the primitive church, re- 
 specting the obligation to conform to the law of Moses, when the 
 Apostles, Elders and brethren came together to consider the matter, 
 as recorded in Acts xv. Paul certainly maintained the abolition of 
 the ceremonial institute. That all could not have been of the same 
 mind is evident from this, that there was much " disputing," that 
 is, arguing on the subject. But who will say that this difference 
 destroyed the unity of the church, or put those on one side or the 
 other of this question, out of the christian society? Again: that 
 Usher and Leighton and others of former days ; that Newton, Scott, 
 Milner and other distinguished ornaments of the modern Episcopal 
 denomination, held Cuhinistic sentiments is undeniable ; that other 
 members of that society (with what consistency we must be par- 
 doned for being unable to see) hold Arminian opinions, will not be 
 doubted. But does bishop R. say that these varying, and indeed 
 directly opposing sentiments, exclude either party from the church, 
 and from the covenanted of mercies God ? He will not say this of 
 the Arminian members of the Church of England, we are sure. 
 Usher and Leighton were both archbishops, and of course were in 
 the church. Newton, Scott and Milner had Episcopal hands laid 
 on them, and received beneficesin the church ; certainly then they 
 could not have been out of the church ! And if differences in point 
 of doctrine such as separate Arminians and Calvinists do not exclude 
 them from the church, that is, do not break the unity of the church, 
 surely it is not destroyed by the difference in point of order be- 
 tween an Episcopalian and a Presbyterian. But this by the way. 
 There are truths, which men must believe, or they cannot be united 
 to Christ. There are others, in relation to which they may differ, 
 and not thereby prevent this union. If bishop R. wishes for our 
 summary of fundamental doctrines, we are ready to give it in dis- 
 tinct articles. 
 
 1. The existence and perfections of God the Father, Son and 
 Holy Spirit, as revealed in the Bible. 
 
 2. The truth, inspiration, and divine authority of the Holy 
 Scriptures. 
 
 3. The Apostacy and consequent total depravity of man. 
 
 4. Justification by faith in Christ alone, as our only mediator and 
 atoning sacrifice. 
 
 5. Regeneration and Sanctification by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 6. Holy living as the only satisfactory evidence of justifying faith, 
 
 7. The Resurrection of the dead. 
 
 8. The final Judgment, in which eternal life will be awarded to 
 the righteous, and everlasting punishment to the impenitent and un- 
 believing. 
 
 We believe that all who, with the whole heart, receive these 
 doctrines, are united to Christ, and belong to that one body, of 
 which he is the Head and King ; that they are bound to recognise 
 each other as brethren, and hold communion as disciples of a com- 
 mon Lord ; and that any who reject from the fellowship of saints, 
 ^hose who receive and live by these truths, are schismatical and 
 
42 Review of Bishop Ka-censcroft^s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 contentious, laying a stress on outward things, which Jesus Christ 
 has not laid, and thus deeply injuring the true interests of the 
 church which he has purchased with his blood. Here are the 
 principles on which we are willing to hold communion with Epis- 
 copalians, Methodists, Baptists, Congregationali.sts, or Christians of 
 any outward form whatever. We hope that this is frank and fear- 
 less enough for the bishop. But we wish to explain this matter of 
 the church's unity a little farther. The Apostle Paul, Eph. iv, 4 
 — 6, puts this subject in a most clear and intelligible point of light, 
 when he says, " There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are 
 called in hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 
 one God and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in 
 you all." The one body, here is the church. Its unity consists in 
 a number of particulars : unity of faith in one God, the Father, Son 
 and Holy Spirit ; — unity of hope, arising from belief in the same 
 Saviour, and reliance on the influences of the same Spirit ; — unity 
 o( baptism, as binding men to the same body, and to the profession 
 of the same faith. In relation to this last particular, it deserves to 
 be remarked, that according to the rubricks of the Episcopal church, 
 this unity of baptism does not depend on the form of administration, 
 for this may be either sprinkling or immersion. If the same truth 
 is represented by these different modes, it is the same sacrament. 
 And so of the Lord's Supper. If these ordinances are significant 
 of the same saving truth, and seals of the same " righteousness of 
 faith," different modes of administering and receiving make no dif- 
 ference at all material : they certainly do not destroy the unity of 
 the church. We may then acknowledge as fellow christians, one 
 who has been immersed ; another who has been sprinkled ; and a 
 third who has had water poured on him. We see, then, that the 
 essential matter of the unity of the church consists in unity of doc- 
 trine. If the same fundamental truths are received by a living 
 faith, there is the same church, no matter what the differences in 
 external form and order of a particular society. And they who 
 deny this, make a great deal more of outward matters, than Christ 
 and his Apostles did. — We conclude then, that. 
 
 The church of Christ is the same, in all ages, and under all 
 changes of outward form, how great soever they were, because its 
 members held the same fundamental truths. And for the very same 
 reason, the different branches of the church, though differing in 
 points of inferior importance, and in matters of outward form, yet 
 constitute the same body. He who denies this appears strangely 
 to misunderstand the true character of the gospel. He has yet to 
 learn that its whole efficiency depends on the truth carried to the 
 understanding and the conscience. It is the truth which sanctifies 
 the heart ; which lays the foundation for all our hopes ; and pre- 
 pares us to hold communion with God in a region of perfect purity. 
 When we think of these things, it is impossible for us to express 
 our surprise and sorrow, at seeing christian ministers magnify 
 mere modes, and means, and instruments, into matters of vital im- 
 portance, on which the hopes of man for eternity are suspended. 
 
 3. In the next place, we observe that the purpose and powers 
 of the christian ministry, are not what bishop R. imagines them to be. 
 
HevieUD of Bishop Kavenscrofl*s Vindication and Defence, 43 
 
 That the reader may understantl our views of this subject, he 
 ought to have distinct notions of the nature and constitution of the 
 church, as it was organized by Christ and his Apostles. We have 
 already given a general sketch of tliis subject, but it is important 
 that it should be considered more particularly. 
 
 Under the old dispensation, a large and important part of the ser- 
 vice was intended to foreshow Christ and the benefits which he pro- 
 cures for believers. According to the Apostle Paul, this was the 
 great design of the priesthood and of the temple service. They 
 were types of the Saviour, and the sacrifice to be, once for all, made 
 by him for the sins of men. In all these things, then, as long as 
 the dispensation lasted, there was to be no change, except what the 
 mortality of man made unavoidable in the persons of the priests. 
 In regard to the priestly office, " no man took this honour on him- 
 self, but he that was called of God, as was Aaron." And it would 
 have been the most daring presumption for any one to have set 
 himself up as a type and representation of Christ, and to have of- 
 fered sacrifices to God without special authority from heaven. But 
 in all cases, where the simple office was to afford instruction, we 
 find no such particular prescription. This is evident from the his- 
 tory of the synagogue worship, as set up by the Jews, and recog- 
 nised by our Saviour. 
 
 When he who had been set forth by the priesthood and the teni" 
 pie service came, and completed his work, then the whole Levitical 
 institute was abolished, and a human priesthood forever ceased. 
 We wish our readers to bear this in mind ; and therefore we re- 
 peat that there is no priest recognised in the gospel but the great 
 *' high priest of our profession," Jesus Christ. If indeed were- 
 gard the etymological meaning of the word priest, and make it 
 synonimous with presbyter, there is no sort of objection to the use 
 of it. But this is not its ordinar}' signification. It is a translation 
 of the Greek word lEpEVg or of the Latin Sacerdos, and designates 
 one who is divinely appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices to God on 
 the part of the people, and to bring back to the people answers 
 from God. Of course, the offering which he makes, and he alone 
 dares to make, is accepted for the people ; and they are obliged, 
 on pain of the displeasure of heaven, to receive and obey the an- 
 swer brought back by tiie priest. Now there is nothing of all this 
 in the New Testament. And there is no analogy between the of- 
 fice of a priest and that of a minister of the gospel. The Levitical 
 priesthood represented the coming Saviour ; and the analogy, in 
 this case, is between thejr office and the office of the Redeemer. 
 It is a lamentable error, then, for ministers of the gospel to derive 
 conclusions respecting their office and powers, from the priesthood 
 of the former dispensation. There is nothing of all this in the New 
 Testament. The Apostles never thought of assuming this honour ; 
 and it was not claimed until the attempt was made to raise the clergy 
 above the station in which their Master placed them. 
 
 Having shown that the temple service throws no light on the or- 
 ganization of the church under the present dispensation, let us look 
 now to the New Testament. The word (exx?.yj<yia) rendered 
 6 
 
44 Review of Bishop JiavenscroJVs Vindicaiion and lytfencc. 
 
 cJiurch is used in the writings of the Apostles in a co7)xmon, and in a 
 sacred sense. In the former, it means an assemby of citizens con- 
 vened for the transaction of civil business : Acts xix, 38, "in a law- 
 ful assembly, ev tt evvo[.tXi) exxT^^Cia. In the latter sense, it is 
 used to signify, 1. The whole number of Christ's disciples, con- 
 sidered as a body, of which he is the head; Matt, xvi, J 8. "On 
 this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not pre- 
 vail against it." Eph. i, 22, 23. " and he gave him to be head 
 over all things to the church, which is his body, &c." 2. The 
 word means, in its most common acceptation, an assembly, or as- 
 sociation of believers, united together for worship, as in 1 Cor. i, CJ. 
 "the church of God which is in Corinth." Acts viii, 1. "the 
 church which was at Jerusalem," and many other passages. It 
 deserves remark too, that in the New Testament, when more than 
 one congregation is mentioned, the word is invariably used in the 
 plural number : thus we have Rom. xvi, 4. " The churches of the 
 Gentiles :" 2 Cor. viii, 1. " the churches of Macedonia :" Gal. i, 
 2. " the churches of Galatia," ver. 22. " the churches of Judea :" 
 Rom. xvi, 16. " the churches of Christ :" 1 Thess. ii, 14. and 
 2 Thess. i, 4. " the churches of God." — According to scriptural 
 usage then, we are warranted in saying that the church consists of 
 all those throughout the world, who profess the religion of Christ; 
 and that a particular church, such for instance as one of the 
 churches in Judea, consists of a number of persons associated to- 
 gether, according to the law of Christ, for the worship of God, and 
 for holy living. 
 
 We have before shown, that an Association of this kind is, in the 
 •very nature of the case, a voluntary Association. The society is 
 indeed formed under the authority of God ; but it is in willing obe- 
 dience to this authority. It is the greatest of all absurdities to 
 speak of involuntary religious service. Religion, too, is primarily a 
 r)erso7ial concern. When one is made a christian, it is by learning 
 its truth, feeling its power, and under its influence for«iing a union 
 with the people of Christ. If, then, we conceive of the organiza- 
 tion of a particular church, we must think of it in some such way 
 as this. — A number of persons hear the gospel, study the scriptures, 
 agree as to the doctrines contained in them and the worship pre- 
 scribed, and associate on the principle of obeying the law of Christ 
 according to their understanding of its true meaning. This they 
 do under their responsibility to God, and to him alone. There is 
 no power on earth to prescribe to them laws and bind them to obe- 
 dience. If these men truly interpret and sincerely obey the law 
 of Christ, they are owned as his people, and partake of the bless- 
 ings which he has procured : if they misinterpret or disobey this 
 law, he disowns them. The case is in principle the same, when 
 one joins himself to a church already organized. He is convinced 
 that the true doctrine of Christ is taught in that society and wishing 
 to partake of the blessings of which that doctrine gives him the as- 
 surance, he for this reason, unites himself to the Association. 
 
 All this implies knowledge of the truth, reception of it, and sub- 
 missioTi to its requirements. And it never can be too often repeat- 
 
R'cviexv of Bishop Ravenscrojfs Vindication and Defence. 45 
 
 ed that the whole efficiency of religion is the efficiency of truth. 
 Now for the pvirpose of facility in gaining knowledge of the truth, 
 the Head of the church, in his wisdom and goodness, appointed as 
 teachers of his religion, men who had known its power, and were 
 fully instructed in its doctrines. He also gave sufficiently clear in- 
 dications that the office of teacher was to be perpetual in the 
 church ; — the reason of it always exists. Here, then, we see what 
 is the great end of the christian ministry. And really we are unable 
 to see how any one can read the New Testament, without perceiv- 
 ing this truth. From beginning to end, little is said of the polity 
 or order of the church, or the authority of its ministry: but the 
 business of instruction is every where insisted on as their great ap- 
 propriate duty. " The things which thou had heard of me among 
 many witnesses, the same commit thou unto faithful men, who shall 
 be able to teach others also." 2 Tim. ii, 2, and verse 24. " The 
 servant of the Lord must be apt to teach,^^ ver. 25, " in meekness, 
 'instructing them who oppose themselves." Chap, i, 13. " Hold 
 fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me." Paul's 
 epistles to Timothy and Titus are full of exhortations and charges 
 of this kind. And of himself he says, 1 Corinthians i, 17. "Christ 
 sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." Gal. i, 15, 16. 
 ^' When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, 
 and called me by his grace to reveal his son in me, that I might 
 preach him among the heathen, &.c." The great business of the 
 ministry is preaching the gospel. This accords precisely with the 
 whole character and design of Christianity as a system of truth, and 
 deriving its whole saving efficacy from the power of truth. Cler- 
 gymen are teachers in the school of Christ ; and this is their highest 
 character. The Bible is their text book. Hence, the unquestion- 
 able soundness of our remark, that he is the best minister of Christ, 
 who most perfectly understands religious truth, most deeply feels 
 its power, and most affectionately commends it to the acceptance of 
 others. — We cannot help remarking that the imposition of a bishop's 
 hands does do good in this case. We have read and heard a great 
 deal about the virtue of what is called apostolical succession. For 
 the life of us, we never could get down to the meaning of this thing; 
 but we are perfectly sure that it has no efficacy in this most impor- 
 tant part of a minister's office. Undeniable facts afford most decis- 
 ive evidence that there is no stream of wisdom or knowledge run- 
 ning through the succession, and pouring out its rills, through 
 Episcopal fingers, into those on whom bishops lay their hands. 
 
 But it is necessary that we should carefully consider the true 
 character of ecclesiastical power, before we can bring the dispute 
 between us and the bishop to a satisfactory conclusion. This is a 
 subject which all ought to understand, for it concerns them much. 
 The church and the world have suffered infinite evils from the mis- 
 takes of the ignorant, and the perversions of the aspiring in relation 
 to this very thing. It is high time that the people should be so 
 informed, as to preserve them from the errors zealously propagated 
 in this country at the present day. 
 
 And here we lay it down as an indisputable truth that, in regard 
 to the subject now before us, the great difference between the church 
 
46 Beviexv of Bishop Itavenscrojt's Vindication and JJejence. 
 
 and any other voluntary association is this ; — voluntary associations 
 ordinarily have the power of framing their own laws, while the 
 christian society is organized on the principle of obedience to the 
 laws of Christ. TIjis observation determines the o?rto«n< of eccle- 
 siastical power at once. There can, properly speaking, be no 
 legislation in the church. The enactments of the Lord of consci- 
 ence can alone bind the conscience. In regard to things indifferent 
 (res adiaphorae) the church can agree on rules of expediency, but 
 she can make no laws. She can only receive as menibers of the 
 Association those who profess obedience to the laws of Christ's 
 kingdom ; instruct them wherein they are ignorant ; admonish and 
 rebuke, in the spirit of meekness and love, the disobedient. And 
 if any are found incorrigible, she can only say, that she owns 
 them no longer as members. Beyond this, the church has no right 
 to go. And we do here challenge any man to show that, as organ- 
 ized by the Apostles, she has any more power than this. 
 
 But here is a question of very great importance — who is the de- 
 positary of this power ? This is a dividing point between us and 
 liigh-churchmen of all orders. VVe lay it down as a fundamental 
 principle in our system of polity, that ecclesiastical power is, by the 
 Lord Jesus Clirist, vested in the Church : it belongs to the body of 
 the FAITHFUL PEOPLE. Oup Opponents maintain, that it is commit- 
 ted by the Head of the church directly to the christian ministry : that 
 the ministry consists of an order of men differing from the laity ; 
 and that it is their business to come between God and man, to trans- 
 act business with men for heaven ; authoritatively to interpret for 
 men the word of God ; and, by administering the sacraments, to 
 give them assurance of salvation : in a word, they " are substitutes 
 lor Christ's person on earth." Now we hold this doctrine to be 
 utterly popish and heretical, inconsistent with the nature of true 
 religion as a voluntary service, incompatible with christian libert}'', 
 and well suited to give an undue influence to the ministers of reli- 
 gion. The general admission of these pretensions, was one cause, 
 and that not the least efficient, in producing the great corruption of 
 the church. It brought about that subjugation of the mind to ec- 
 clesiastical power, which was one of the striking characteristics of 
 the age of darkness, through which the church groped for nearly 
 ten centuries. Nor does religion alone suffer by the admission of 
 these pretensions. They clothe ecclesiastics with a power, to which 
 nothing on earth is equal, and to which, after an unavailing struggle, 
 every thing submits. What will we not surrender to a man, to 
 whom we have surrendered the right of directing our conscience ; 
 and whom we regard as invested with authority from heaven to re- 
 ceive us into the church, or repel us from it ; to give us assurance 
 of salvation, or cut us oft' from the hope of mercy ? 
 
 No ; the power which the Lord Jesus gave, is vested in his 
 church — in the great company of believers ; the Society organized 
 according to his laws. Of this, we have decisjive evidence in scrip- 
 ture. Matt, xviii, 17. " And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell 
 IT to the church," but if he neglect to hear the church, let him 
 be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." The original word 
 here used is the commoa one, (exxT^yidia,) and it is admitted by 
 
lieviexv of Bishop llavcnscrqft^s Vindicaiion and Defence. 47' 
 
 the best expositors, that it means the society formed by Jesus 
 Christ, for religious purposes. See Lightfoot Hor. Talm. and Vit- 
 ringa, de Vet. Lyn. Pa. 97. In conformity to this command of our 
 Saviour, the Apostle Paul directs the Church in Corinth to cast out 
 the oflender, who had brought on them shame and trouble. And 
 in referring to this subject he says, 2 Cor. ii, 6. '*• SufRcientis this 
 punishment, which was inflicted of many." (vno IcdV 7lX€lov(dV,) 
 Hence it appears that the poAf?r of rejecting members, from this 
 voluntary association, accordmg to the appointment of Christ, is 
 vested in the society. 
 
 Again : Paul addressing the church at Rome, Rom. xvi, 17. says, 
 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions 
 and otfences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and 
 avoid them." 2 Thess. iii, 6. "Now we command you brethren, 
 in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, th.it ye withdraw from every 
 brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which 
 ye received of us." In 1 John iv, 1. we find the Apostle saying, 
 " Brethren, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether 
 they are of God ; because many false propliets are gone out into 
 the world." All these directions are given to the body of the 
 faithful. They are required to mark the disorderly, that is such 
 as do not conform to the doctrine of Christ ; to distinguish true and 
 false teachers, and to reject the latter, while they approve the for- 
 mer. Hence we infer the induiutable right of a church, to choose 
 its own religious teachers ; and separate from themselves, mem- 
 bers who refuse to submit to the law of Christ's kingdom. 
 
 What further evidence is necessary to show that, according to 
 the will of Jesus Christ, the power which he has given is vested 
 in the church ? But it also accords with his will, that this voluntary 
 association should execute the great purposes of its organization, 
 according to the obvious dictates of prudence and common sense. 
 In all societies it is necessary that officers should be appointed, to 
 transact the business of the society, according to its constitution. 
 The power of the Association belongs to the whole body of the 
 members. But the exercise of it is delegated to the officers. — 
 What they do, as representatives of the members, according to the 
 constitution, is done by the members. So in general it is in the 
 church. Ecclesiastical power, as far as there is any, belongs to 
 the people ; but the exercise of it is committed to the officers of 
 the church. The various duties of these officers correspond to the. 
 nature and objects of the Association. By far the most important 
 part of this duty consists, as has already been shown, in exhibition 
 of the truth, as Christ has revealed it. The exhibition of truth in- 
 cludes the administration of the sacraments : because, the sacra- 
 ments are signijicant actions, which vvhen properly explained, do 
 in the most striking manner represent the truth to our under- 
 standings. As for the rest, it consi.-ts in admitting members, into 
 tlie Association, and rejecting from it, those who will not obey the 
 commands of Christ. 
 
 That the officers of the christian society have no power separate 
 and distinct from that of the church, appears to us most manifest 
 from the passages of scripture before quoted. The Bible contains 
 
1 S Reviexv of Bishop Havenscroft's Vindication and JDeJ'enct. 
 
 the rule both of doctrine and discipline. Preachers of the gospel 
 are teachers appointed to assist the people in understanding the will 
 of God. If they teach doctrines contrary to this will, the people 
 are bound by the command of God to withdraw from them. They 
 must then be judges in this case; and form opinions under their 
 responsibility to God alone. " Try the spirits," is the precept 
 addressed to the whole body of the f;iithful. The people associat- 
 ed on the principle of obedience to th<- law of Christ, must be con- 
 vinced that what they hear is the truth taught by Christ, or there 
 can be no obligation to obey. And obedience is not rendered at 
 all because the church officer pronounces the law, but because he 
 tells what the law o/* Christ is. Bishop R.'s plan of verifying the 
 church by the ministry is utterly preposterous. The truth ib, it is 
 the Bible which enables us to verif}- the ministry, and all their 
 administrations. This is the plain scriptural statement of the case 
 according to the passages before quoted. Commo.n sense, too, coin- 
 cides here as it does every where, with the rules of scripture. The 
 thing is thus — The Bible contains a system of truth, by the moral 
 power of which we are to be fitted for heaven. They are true 
 ministers of Christ who truly preach his doctrine. If any, however 
 they may have been ordained, preach not the gospel of Christ, 
 they are not ministers of Christ. As teaching is their great business, 
 so teaching the truth is decisive of their character. It is by this that 
 they are to be verified. And we never can sufficiently wonder that a 
 Protestant should leave these plain principles, and put the hopes of 
 man for salvation on the utter impossibility of proving in any par- 
 ticular case what is called apostolical succession. Yes ; it is the 
 Bible which enables us to verify the church, and the ministry, and 
 the sacraments — " I say the Bible is the religion of Protestants." 
 And here we venture to propose a few questions growing out of this 
 subject, which we wish bishop R. to digest at his leisure. 
 
 1. If preachers of the gospel, however ordained, teach doctrines 
 contrary to the will of Christ, are the people bound to believe them ? 
 
 2. If the officers of the church receive into the christian societ}'', 
 adult persons who do not repent and believe the gospel, does Christ 
 receive them ? 
 
 3. If through ignorance, prejudice or passion they repel from 
 the church those who do repent and believe, does Christ reject 
 them ? 
 
 4. If they administer the sacraments in form, but are utterly ig- 
 norant of the spiritual truths represented by them, and administer 
 to equally ignorant people, do they administer, and do the people 
 receive true sacraments ? 
 
 But leaving the bishop to ponder these interrogatories and pro- 
 nounce as shall seem good to him; we proceed a little farther with 
 our views of the church. Christ we have seen has left all the 
 power which he chose should be exercised, to the church. But 
 according to the ordinary principles of convenience and prudence 
 this power is delegated to the officers of the church. The parti- 
 cular form, however, of church government is not drawn out in the 
 scriptures. If it is, why can it not be plainly stated, so as at once 
 tQ settle this much disputed point ? But this never has been done 
 
Meviexv of Bishop liai)enscroJV s Vindication and Defence. 49 
 
 by any of the advocates of divine right, and we boldly say that it 
 never can be done. We challenge any man, or set of men on the 
 earth to do it. A few examples, and a i'ew general principles are 
 all that we find in the Bible. There must be teachers in the church, 
 and there must be discipline. If the church chooses among the 
 teachers, to invest one with the office of inspecting and superintend- 
 ing his brethren, we have nothing to say against it. Only let that 
 one remember, as Jerome expresses it, that he is superior to his 
 brethren by the custom of the church, and not by the appointment 
 of the Lord. If others prefer to follow the original example, and 
 keep all religious teachers in a state ■ f official equality, we do high- 
 ly approve the determination. But in either case, we would have 
 the teachers to remember that they do not stand between God 
 and man, deriving their authority directly from heaven, and em- 
 powered to bind the consciences of their fellow creatures. 
 
 Our view of this subject may be illustrated by the case of civil 
 government. Scripture says "the powers that be are ordained of 
 God." This declaration is received very differently by different 
 men. A pensioned advocate of legitimacy uses it to prove the di- 
 vine right of kings. We are sure that if we chose it, we could 
 bring a better argument for monarchy from the Bible, than our Bi- 
 shop has done for prelacy. But an enlightened republican sees at 
 once through the sophistry of all reasonings of this kind. The 
 Bible teaches no more than that civil government is agreeable to 
 the will of God, and that it is not a matter to be meddled with by 
 the teachers of religion. If the people prefer a monarchical govern- 
 ment, as in England, be it so. If they choose a republic as in the 
 United States, so much the better. But all the time the power is 
 in the people. In like manner, it is the will of God that his church 
 should be under a form of government suited to its nature as a vol- 
 untary association formed to give efficiency to revealed truth. And 
 the church is not organized without its officers. The ministry 
 then may be said to be of divine appointment. It truly is ordained of 
 God, because it is the will of the Head of the Church that there 
 should be teachers of the truth in the christian society. But far- 
 ther than this, the divine right of priests is as great a fable as the 
 divine right of kings. It was originally invented for the same pur- 
 pose; and we are truly sorry to observe that these old mischievous 
 notions are revived in this country and this age. 
 
 Having stated our views thus far, respecting the purpose and 
 powers of the christian ministry, we find this a proper occasion for 
 inquiring, how, according to the scriptures, men are invested with 
 this oflice. The technical term for this investiture is ordination. 
 We are brought to the subject by the following passage in the work 
 imder Pteview. 
 
 'In my Farewell Sermon, p. 8—1 lay down the following-, as the just and 
 only certain metliod of determining this question. "If tlie authority by 
 which any denomination of christians minister in sacred things cannot be 
 . shown, to be derived from the apostles of Christ, that is cannot be verified 
 as a fact, sucti denomination cannot be a true branch of that catholic apos- 
 tolic church, in which we profess to believe." In your Review p. 647, you 
 give your view of the subject in these words ; 
 
 "If an association calling itself a church, administers baptism, in the name 
 cf the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit— celebrates the Lord's Supper, pvinp 
 
50 Review of Bishop Kavenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 bread and wine to the communicants, as memorials of the broken body and 
 shed blood of the Lord Jesus — puts the pure word of God into tlie hands of 
 the people — teaches tlie doctrines of Christ, sucli as "the entire spiritual 
 death and alienation of man from God — the reconciliation of God to the 
 world by the sufferings and deatli of his only begotten Son — the atonement 
 of his blood — ^justification by faith — acceptance through the merits of the 
 Saviour -conversion of the heart to God — holiness of life, the only evidence 
 of it, and the grace of God, in the renewal of the Holy Ghost, the sole agent 
 from first to last, in working out our salvation from sin here, and from hell 
 hereafter;" and finally, has a ministry trained for the work, and qualified 
 to impart spiritual instruction — we have no doubt but there is a true church 
 of Christ whether tiieir ministers are set apart to their work "by the laying 
 on the hands of the Presbytery" as in the days of Paul, or by the ordination 
 of a Bishop, as is the practice of some modern cliurches." 
 
 •Without stopping to notice the abundant matter for animadversion, which 
 this very guardedly equivocal expression of your views on the divine right 
 of the christian ministry, presents; I accept it as an acknowledgment, that 
 you consider ordination essential to that office. But as you do not say in 
 what sense you consider it essential, I must therefore ask whether it is a 
 mere designation to office for notoriety of the person, or as imparting a cha- 
 racter, that you think it essential ? On the answer to this much depends, 
 through whatever channel the ordaining power is transmitted, whether 
 through Presbyters or Bishops. As you admit however, that the ministerial 
 office is a divine institution, I must suppose you also to admit, that ordina- 
 tion confers or imparts a character ; and as the ministerial character is a di- 
 vine right to transact the affairs of Christ's kingdom, ordination must conse- 
 quently be the only evidence (miracles excepted) of divine right — the sub- 
 stitute to us, for miraculous attestation to the ministerial commission. If 
 this reasoning be correct, it also follows necessarily, that as this evidence of 
 divine right is fopthe benefit of third persons — it must be verifiable — it must 
 be capable of proof, as a fact.' 
 
 The general view which we have taken of this subject is such as 
 this — According to the nature of the case, the efficacy of the gospel, 
 as has already been shown, depends on the truth which it reveals, 
 and on that truth as understood and cordially received. Hence the 
 importance of religious teachers, and the reason why, in every age, 
 it is the will of Christ that men should be employed in the office. 
 But in the church as organized by Christ and his Apostles, nothing 
 is known of a difference of order. This is a figment of men in after 
 times, who in their ardent aspirings to power, struck out this inven- 
 tion to secure to themselves greater reverence, and more com- 
 plete submission on the part of the people. That there were 
 different offices in the christian church, and that the duties of one 
 officer ought not to be performed by another, we most readily grant. 
 And the reason is most obvious. "Let all things be done decently 
 and in order" — Let all things be done for edification. But it pro- 
 duces disorder, it prevents edification to confound offices and duties. 
 This is the reason; and as far as we can see, the only reason. — 
 Where in the New Testament is any intimation that by one cere- 
 mony of ordination the character of Deacon is impressed; by 
 another that of priest; and then by a different ceremony the epis- 
 copal character was communicated? Surely we need not say that 
 there was nothmg of all this in the practice of the Apostles. As for. 
 difference of dignity and rank, therefore, there was no such thing. 
 It is at war with the whole genius of Christianity, and the spirit 
 breathed by Jesus Christ. Matt, xx, 25, 26. "But Jesus called 
 
Review of Bishoj) Ravenscrofl*s Vindication and Defence. 5i 
 
 them unto him and saitl, ye know that tlie princes of the Gentiles 
 exercise dominion over them, and thoy that are great exercise au- 
 thority upon them; but it shall not be so among you: but whoso- 
 ever will be great among yon, let him be your minister; [^taxoro^ 
 servant] atid whosoever will be chief among you let him be your 
 servant" [^OP/los-slave.] "The presbyters who are among you," 
 says the Apostle Peter, "I exhort, who am your fellow presbyter." 
 The Apostles of Christ, after they had received the Holy Spirit, 
 dreamed not of orders and dignities. Such trifles were too low and 
 worldly for them: nor were they thought of, until a secular spirit 
 crept into the church. 
 
 But as for the particular point before us, the true meaning of or- 
 dination, a careful examination of the New Testament affords the 
 surest means of arriving at the truth. 
 
 The following, if our Greek concordance does not mislead us, are 
 the onl}' words of the original, rendered by the English term ordain, 
 applied to ecclesiastical appointments. We quote in each case, the 
 original word, that competent readers may judge for themselves: 
 and we do sincerely hope (such is our feeling for the bishop) that 
 Greek will not be troublesome to him. 
 
 Mark iii, 14. "And he ordained [£7to/>7(7e] twelve, that thej^ 
 might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach." 
 Now any schoolboy, who has read as much Greek as is contained 
 in the Grcuca Minora, knows that the word here used in the original, 
 is about equivalent to the English verb to make; and when applied 
 to official situations is certainly as unlimited as the word to appoirit. 
 If any id6a is particularly expressed, it is the sovereign authority of 
 Him who instituted the office. 
 
 The next word rendered by ordain is found in Acts i, 22. "Be- 
 ginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was 
 taken up from us, must one be ordained [ysvio^L] to be a witness 
 with us of his resurrection." Here the word is as indefinite as the 
 English word to be; and the passage might with the utmost propriety 
 be rendered "must one be or become a witness with us of his re- 
 surrection." 
 
 In the next place, an example is afforded by Acts xiv, 23. "And 
 when they (Paul and Barnabas) had ordained [;^ffpoTol^>7Crai'7£$] 
 them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they 
 commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." The term 
 here in use, signifies literally to stretch forth the hand. In the pop- 
 ular governments of Greece, this was the mode in which the citi- 
 zens, in public elections, gave their votes:* hence the word came 
 to be used in the sense of our English word to elect. The sense 
 afterwards became more general, and the word was equivalent to 
 the English, appoint;] no matter how the appointment was made. 
 * See Xenophon's Anabasis, iii. 22. Kai OtQ SoxSL tdvla, dvaffi- 
 
 vara tr^if jc^i^- Aviteivov aTtavleg. 
 
 t 2 Cor. viii, 19. 'KEipOtOVi^^Stg GVV£xhy}^Og, Vfi-CiiV, who was cho- 
 sen of the churches, to travel with us. Philo. De Leg. ad Calum £^ftpO- 
 "^OVH tovg BiaX0(ildwlag av^pa?, He appointed men to carry the let- 
 
 ters. ~ 
 
o'Z Hevieiv nf Bishop Jiavcnscrnjrs Vindicaiiuu and Lcjena^ 
 
 Hence, according to the usage of language, the words of this passage 
 dcterraine nothing as to the nature of ordination; they only enable 
 us to say that Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters in the. 
 churches. 
 
 Again: in 1 Timothy ii, 7, Paul snys, "whereunto I am ordained 
 [fVsd);?^] a preacher and an apostle." Now a bishop need not be 
 told that this is one of the most general words in the Greek lan- 
 guage; and that it answers to the English terms, to place, put, lay, 
 &c. In the sense of the text, it is spoken of persons appointed or 
 designated for any specific object; whether to do or suffer any 
 thing. Let the reader consult the following passages, and if he can 
 do so in the original. John xv, 16. 1 Tim. i, 12. 1 Thes. v, 9. 
 1 Peter ii, 8. In the first passage, this word is rendered ordained: 
 In the second, it is putting me into the ministry: In the third, it is 
 appointed: and so in the last. The word employed in these passa- 
 ges, affords, therefore another instance of a term so undefined, as 
 to determine nothing beyond mere appointment to office. 
 
 Once more: in Titus i, 5, the Apostle says, "For this cause I 
 left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are 
 wanting, and ordain [Ka7a(j7>iO'>7$] Elders in every city." Here 
 again is a term of very general signification, often rendered to place 
 or set over, to appoint. In the sense of the text it means to consti- 
 tute, or appoint to any station, duty or office. It occurs in Matt, 
 xxiv, 45, 47 — XXV, 2 1,23. Lukexii, 14. Acts vi, 3, 7— x, 27, 35. 
 Heb. ii, 7 — v, l,&c. Let the reader consult these passages also in 
 the original, and mark the usage of the New Testament in relation 
 to this word. 
 
 The conclusion to which we are obliged to come from the whole 
 view of the case is this: — The writers of the New Testament, in 
 speaking of ordination use no fewer than^tre different words, all of 
 which are as general, undefined terms as any others in the language; 
 and by no torture of interpretation can be made to signify more than 
 to appoint, to place in office. 
 
 The use of this induction will be apparent from the following 
 observations. — The high church notion respecting ordination is, 
 that it is a peculiar rite, impressing a character; that this cliaracter 
 is essential to the ministerial office; that it can be communicated in 
 no possible way, but by a diocesan bishop, who can show his au- 
 thentic credentials, as derived from the Apostles; that the very be- 
 ing of the church, and all the warranted hopes of man depend on this 
 ordination; and that all who are not connected with a ministry thus 
 constituted, have no reliance on the covenanted mercies of God. — 
 This is high church doctrine; but is it scriptural? Is it at all credible 
 that the inspired writers would have expressed a subject of such 
 unspeakable importance, of such awful bearing in the most general 
 and indefinite terms in the language? It is not in this way they 
 write, when they speak of other matters, which concern the life of 
 the soul. When they treat of repentance, of faith, of charity, of 
 holy living, they speak in terms, plain, definite, decisive. But 
 when they speak of ordination, sometimes one general term, and 
 
iieview of Bishop llavenscrqfi^s Vindication and Defence. 53 
 
 sometimes another is employed by them." Is it not manifest then, 
 that what high churchmen think essential, the Apostles regarded as 
 comparatively unimportant? We venture to affirm, that an intelli- 
 gent reader of the New Testament, without any system to serve, 
 on perusing all the passages quoted by us, would not once think of 
 ordination, as bishop R. does. The trufh is this; men's minds have 
 been filled with hierarchical notions, and inventions of an ambitious 
 clergy: the plain, unpretending teachers of Christianity have been 
 metamorphosed into priests of the most high God, accredited agents 
 of heaven, substitutes (vicars) of Christ; — and the scriptures have 
 been construed to suit these previous notions. Our readers may 
 rely on it that high church would never have been found in the 
 Bible, had not the prejudices of men placed it there beforehand. 
 
 But there are phrases in the New Testament, which express what 
 is meant by ordination, as well as single words which designate the 
 act. A careful inquiry into the meaning of these is demanded. — 
 The whole subject is however included in a single question, What 
 is signified by the laying on of hands in ordination? The record of 
 the action is made in four or five passages in the New Testament: 
 namely, Acts vi, 6 — xiii, 3. 1 Tim. iv, 14, compared with 2 Tim. 
 i, 6 — and 1 Tim. v, 22. If there are any other cases in which 
 imposition of hands is used to signify ecclesiastical ordination, they 
 have escaped our notice. Before we proceed to a particular ex- 
 amination of these, we would observe that, in scripture, this rite 
 was observed on five occasions. 
 
 1. When a benediction was pronounced. 2. When the special 
 benediction of pardon was pronounced. 3. When miraculous gifts 
 of the Holy Spirit were bestowed. 4, When miraculous cures 
 •were performed. 5. When persons were inaugurated, or inducted 
 into office. The Apostles by the imposition of hands, sometimes 
 intended one of these things, and sometimes the other. But what: 
 was the particular import of the right in ordination? We shall best 
 answer by looking at its origin. That it was a common right in 
 the Jewish synagogue, and of course familiar to all Jewish worship- 
 ers, is well known. In Num. xxvii, 15 — 23, we find a case which 
 probably gave rise to the custom. God especially designates 
 Joshua as the successor of Moses. He is selected, because "</ie 
 Spirit is in him.'''' And Moses is commanded "to lay his hand upon 
 him, and set him before Eleazar the priest, and all the congrega- 
 tion, and give him a charge in their sight." — "And Moses did as 
 the Lord commanded, and he took Joshua and set him before 
 Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation, and he laid his 
 hands on him and gave him a charge." Now how is it possible 
 for any one not to sec that imposition of hands here is for designa- 
 tion of the person to ojicc? The appointment had been made before, 
 and the reason of it assigned; because the Spirit urns in Joshua. — 
 After this we find the prevalence of this custom down to the days of 
 the Apostles. 
 
 With these observations before us, let us turn to the first case 
 cited. Acts vi, 6. It is that of the appointment of Deacons: "whom 
 they set before the Apostles; and when they had prayed, they Jai'' 
 
54 Review of Bishop llavenscroJVs Vindication and Defoicf. 
 
 tlieir hands on them." — A consideration of all the circumstances 
 will show beyond a doubt, that there is nothing in the rite as here 
 stated, but an induction into offices to which the persons mentioned 
 had been elected. If any one affirms that there is something else, 
 we would fain know what it is. These men had, before their elec- 
 tion, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, as is evident from the ex- 
 press words of the saci'ed writer. The Apostles did not therefore 
 lay on their hands, to bestow that gift. And if election by the people 
 was any thing more than an unmeaning ceremony, it gave to these dea- 
 cons the right, power or authority — the reader may call it what he 
 will — to distribute the alms of the church. The deacons, then, did 
 not receive from the Apostles that which the vote of the people had 
 already given. The laying on of hands by the Apostles was just 
 what we have stated, an induction into office — an investiture. It is 
 needless to reason on the expediency and propriety of adopting some 
 decent ceremony to be observed on such occasions; and we need 
 not stop to remark on the advantage of adopting one familiar to the 
 people. 
 
 The second case, Acts xiii, 3, is that of Barnabas and Saul, who 
 were sent out on a special mission to the Gentiles. The following 
 verse.s clearly state the matter — "Now there were in the church 
 that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers, as Barnabas, 
 and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Ma- 
 naen which had been brought up with Herod the Tetrarch, and 
 Saul. As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Ghost 
 said, separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have 
 called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their 
 hands 071 them, they sent them away. Now here was a case of ordi- 
 nation to the ministry, or there was not. If there was, it is a case 
 fatal to the cause of prelacy: for then prophets and elders ordained 
 an Apostle; that is, they ordained to an office higher than that held 
 by themselves. And so presbyters might ordain a diocesan bishop, 
 if they should happen to wish for one [Quod Deus avertat!] But 
 again: if here was an ordination, then what becomes of the notion 
 that in ordination something is communicated; or as bishop R. and 
 the Catholics say a character is impressed? Could these prophets 
 and elders communicate what they had not? — Could they impress 
 the character of Apostolical authority? This will not be pretended. 
 But if there was no ordination here, in the ecclesitistical sense, then 
 imposition of hands was nothing more than designation, after the 
 customary form, to a particular service. This appears to us to be 
 the just view of the subject; for both Barnabas and Saul had, for 
 some years, been employed in the ministry; and surely they did 
 not enter on this service, without having been duly authorized. — 
 Besides; it is well known that, in ancient times, when particular 
 prayer was offered for any one, it was customary, for greater 
 impressiveness, to lay hands on his head. And nothing is more 
 common among truly pious persons of every age, than united prayer 
 for one who is about to engage in any arduous and important enter- 
 prise. Such appears to have been the case in the instance now 
 under consideration. But let every one judge for himself. If 
 ho^vever. our opinion is correct, it shows that no mvsterv was made 
 
llevieto of Bishop Ravenscrojt- s Vindication and Defence. 63 
 
 of this laying on of hands: one while it was designation to office, 
 and then designation to particular service in an office. 
 
 In the next place, pursuing our inquiry, we come to 1 Tim. iv, 
 1 4, compared with 2 Tim. i, 6. "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, 
 which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands 
 of the Presbytery." "Stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by 
 the putting on of my hands." On the first of these passages we re- 
 mark, that the word rendered gift {j(agiGflOi) means any thing freely 
 bestowed ofwhat kind soever it may be. J'he phrase rendered {?i i^ee, 
 {ev ClOl) is a periphrasis for your, according to a well known usage 
 of the Greek language, which employs a substantive pronoun, with 
 this preposition before it for an adjective: ')(iJ.^lO^ £V (Soi, then 
 means ijour gift, i. e. the gift which you have received. By look- 
 ing at the context, it is evident that by this gift, the Apostle designates 
 the office of a christian minister, or teacher. The phrase by pro- 
 phecy is universally understood to mean that prophetical men had 
 foretold Timothy's entrance into the ministry, and probably his dis- 
 tinguished eminence. "With the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
 byiery,^^ expresses the manner in which Timothy was inducted into 
 this office. That the preposition (tela is thus employed might easily 
 be shown by decisive exam<ples; and if this Review should ever be 
 re-published in a separate form with notes and comments, we will 
 show it. The whole amount of the passage, then, is an exhortation 
 to Timothy to discharge faithfully and zealously the duties of the 
 ministerial office, into which he had been inducted by the Presby- 
 tery. [Q,uere — What would bishop R. give if this word Presbyterv 
 could be expunged fairly and honestly from the text, and bishop be 
 inserted in its place?] A comparison of the passage above with 
 that before quoted, 2 Tim. i, 6, warrants the belief that when Tim- 
 othy was ordained, Paul was moderator (chairman, or president, as 
 some would say) of the Presbytery which ordained him, and in virtue 
 of his apostolical powers, communicated the extraordinary gifts of 
 the Holy Spirit, here called the gift of God. But that ordination 
 communicated any thing mysterious, or expressed any transmission 
 of power or authority from Jesus Christ through the ordaining min- 
 ister is nowhere in the remotest degree intimated. The other pas- 
 sage referred to, 1 Tim. v, 22. "Lay hands suddenly on no man," 
 determines nothing as to the particular inquiry now before us. We 
 do therefore maintain that according to scripture, ordination is noth- 
 ing more than induction into an otBce established by Jesus Christ as 
 Head of the Church. 
 
 If it be asked, why then do we hold ordination to be necessary; 
 and why is it ordinarily to be performed by persons already invest- 
 ed with the ministerial office? — We answer, 
 
 1. Not because they in a mysterious manner convey a "charac- 
 ter of authority" which has been transmitted through a long line of 
 ecclesiastics from the apostles. But, 
 
 2. Because it is the will of Jesus Christ that, in his churcb, 
 every thing should be done decently and in order; that the teachers 
 of religion should be as well qualified as possible for discharging the 
 duties of their office; and that such measures should he adopted for 
 
0(5 lleviexu of Bishop liavenscroft's Vindication and TJej'ence, 
 
 ensuring this great object as will give confidence to the people that 
 those who come to them as ministers of religion, are sound and ca- 
 pable teachers of the truth. These are plain, intelligible reasons, 
 which show the wisdom of the appointment. For it is obvious to 
 every man of common sense, that they who have themselves been 
 trained, and who have had experience in the work of the ministry 
 are the best judges of the qualifications of candidates for the sacred 
 office. This plain rule was adopted in the organization of the church. 
 It is the only rule sustained either by reason or scripture. The 
 opinion that by the hands of man a character is transmitted from one 
 generation to another, was cherished by ambitious and worldly- 
 minded ecclesiastics to increase their power; it was readily receiv- 
 ed by the superstitious credulity of former times; and has done infi- 
 nite mischief to the church. As for authority to teach Christ's doc- 
 trine, children in knowledge ought to know that it is not derived 
 from man. We receive it from Jesus Christ, through his revealed 
 truth. He who has received the gospel and felt its power; has 
 been trained for the ministry, and inducted into the office in a way 
 approved by the church and conformed to the general principles 
 laid down in scripture, has all the authority which man can have. 
 He preaches Christ's doctrine, administers Christ''s sacraments, and 
 is therefore acknowledged as a minister of C/irisJ. But let us sup- 
 pose that a man who has been ordained by the archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, does not preach the doctrine of Christ, but another gospeI/, 
 is he a true minister? Let us suppose that he is a Socinian — such 
 there are in the English church — and that, although he administers 
 the sacraments according to the forms of that church, he teaches his 
 flock to understand and receive them in the Socinian sense: — for 
 instance, although he administers baptism in the name of the Father, 
 Son and Holy Spirit, yet he understands, and teachei others to un- 
 derstand that by these words are meant "the supreme God, the man 
 .Tesus, and a divine influence," does he because he was episcopally 
 ordained administer, and does the subject of baptism receive a true 
 sacrament? On the other hand, when a presbyterian minister ad- 
 ministers baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as 
 one living and true God, does he administer no true sacrament be- 
 cause he was not episcopally ordained? Where in the New Testa- 
 ment is any thing to warrant such opinions as these? In the rule 
 given us by our blessed Saviour, form is nothing: truth is every 
 thing: it is by the truth we are sanctified; by the truth we are 
 made free; by the word of God, we are begotten to a lively hope. 
 
 We are grieved and ashamed that the pernicious superstitions of 
 the dark ages should be revived and propagated among us, as truths 
 connected with the very being of the church of Christ, and the 
 best hopes of man for eternity. With many, the opinions which we 
 combat are mere prejudices entertained without any evil intention; 
 but they are deeply to be deplored, because they narrow the views, 
 and limit the exercise of christian affection; they prevent co-oper- 
 ation in plans of christian benevolence, and impede the progress of 
 true religion. 
 
 In reply to all this, bishop R. may say that he holds the necessity 
 of " nnitv of faith" as well as of " order." He does indeed lay 
 
iteview of Bishop ltaien6croJt''s i Indicaiion and JJej'encc. ^i 
 
 down this position in one place in his book; but in another, he un= 
 equivocally prefers the ungodly, fox-hunting parish priest, to the 
 most learned and pious dissenting minister. What the faith of an 
 ringodly, unconverted man is, which unites him with the church, 
 and makes him a link in the chain which preserves the unity of the 
 church, we leave to bishop R. to determine. Certainly there can 
 be no reliance on such a man for true doctrine. He will not preach 
 the pure gospel of Christ. Bishop R. must here resort to his 
 book of common prayer, or his assurance, for unity of faith is gone. 
 And if this is his only resource, has he not been rather rash, in his 
 disclaimer on page 10? He there declaims somewhat furiously 
 about the Reviewer's assertion, that the bishop wished to send the 
 Book of Common Prayer witli the Bible. Yet he takes good care 
 to deny nothing but the authority of the assertion. He will not 
 deny the wish. But of this more perhaps hereafter. We here 
 desire our readers distinctly to understand that our views of ordin- 
 ation have not been adopted because we feel any greater uncertainty 
 as to the succession of presbyters than of bishops. We believe, 
 too, without the least shadow of a doubt, that Calvin and Knox 
 had just as much power to impress a character as Cranmer or Rid- 
 ley. Our opinions are the result of an honest inquiry into the 
 constitution of the church of Christ, as it is laid down in the New 
 Testament. There every thing is commended by the plain and 
 obvious reason of the case. Nothing is mystical; nothing super- 
 stitious. The christian religion is a system of truth, which pro- 
 duces its whole effect by its being known, and received in the lore 
 of it. For this reason, and to accomplish this important purpose, 
 teachers of this religion are employed. There is no more mystery 
 in the office, than in that of any other teacher. He who best un- 
 derstands the religion, most deeply feels its power, and has the 
 greatest zeal for its propagation, is the best instructor. This is 
 precisely the case in all ordinary affairs. Had the matter always 
 been put on this ground, infinite abuse would have been prevented, 
 and the church had been spared incalculable evil: numerous and 
 bitter prejudices would have found no place; and that suspicion of 
 clergymen, and that ho-^tility which rises in man}'^ minds so strongly 
 against them, would appear without the shadow of a foundation. 
 Many difficulties which have perplexed inquirers; many objections 
 urged by infidels would never once have occurred to the mind. 
 
 As an illustration of this last remark, we would ask, who can 
 perceive any difference in the ministrations of religious teachers 
 arising from a difference M their ordination ? What visible differ- 
 ence in the effect of theiX labours?, A pious, zealous episcopalian 
 preaches the gospel: sinners are converted; the fiithful are edified; 
 the afllicted are comforted. A presbyteriiui preaches the same 
 truths; and the same effects follow. No m<in in the world can 
 point out the smallest difference between the penitence, the faith, 
 the love, the hope, the comfort produced by the instrumentality of 
 these different preachers. The character of holiness formed by 
 the truth in each case is, as far as it goes, precisely the same char- 
 acter. Yet bishop R. and his brethren of the high church would 
 wish us to believe that there is a most material difference in the?e 
 
j8 Reviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 two cases, arising solely from this fact, that one preacher was or- 
 dained by a diocesan bishop, and the other by a presbytery. The 
 converts made by the instrumentality of the Presbyterian, believe 
 the doctrine, because it is Christ's doctrine; rely on the promises, 
 because they were made by Christ; receive the sacraments because 
 they were instituted by Christ; cherish the hope of salvation, be- 
 cause it is warranted by the truth which Christ has revealed, and 
 the work which Christ has wrought by his spirit; yet this hope is 
 unscriptural, because, forsooth, his religious teacher has not re- 
 ceived a character of authority transmitted through bishops and 
 popes for 1800 years. Whereas the Episcopalian, who exercises 
 the same repentance, the same faith, the same love, and no more; 
 who receives the sacraments as signs and seals of the same cove- 
 nant of grace, and cherishes precisely the same hope of salvation, 
 has the warrant of heaven for all, because his religious instructor 
 has the character of authority! Pretensions like these stumble be- 
 lief — create offence — awaken suspicion. Men who have no prelati- 
 cal prejudices to warp their minds, look only at the ability of the 
 teacher, and the doctrine taught by him. If these are approved, 
 it does not seem to matter a straw whether the teacher had the 
 hands of one man, or of a presbytery laid on his head. And if the 
 Presbyterian succeeds in persuading his countrymen, to be good 
 citizens, good husbands, fothers, masters, neighbours; to be kind, 
 benevolent, temperate, honest, industrious; to fear God, and work 
 righteousness, the plain, practical man of the world, who judges 
 of religion by its fruits, is perfectly amazed, when he hears the 
 bishops of the church declaring that all this piety, this benevolence, 
 this pure morality goes for nothing, because, truly, these people 
 have not been baptized by a duly authorized minister, have not re- 
 ceived the Lord's supper from a man, on whose head a bishop has 
 laid his hands! Now, people generally will not take the trouble to 
 search the scriptures, and see whether these things are so. For 
 the most part, they take it for granted that surely the bishop must 
 know. I'hey assume that Christianity is really such a religion as 
 its titled advocates represent; that it does suspend man's hopes of 
 ?alvation on these comparatively trivial circumstances; and the in- 
 ference is, that it is a superstition unworthy of a wise man's recep- 
 tion. It is thought incredible that God should connect eternal life 
 with things of so small importance. It is suspected that clergymen 
 put in claims to some mysteriously sacred and elevated character, to 
 raise themselves aliove other people; and clothe themselves with 
 spiritual power, for the sake of ensul-ing implicit submission. 
 There is no telling the extent of .^ nitschief thus wrought by 
 high church pretensions. ^ 
 
 But let the people know, that according to the scriptures, the 
 truth of God is not thus limited in its saving efficacy: that a sinner 
 does not derive his warrant to believe that truth, and to rely on 
 the promises of God in Christ from a fellow worm. Let them 
 know that there is not a syllable in the gospel to warrant these ex- 
 travagant assumptions. And as they love their souls, let them not 
 in a spirit of indolence, rely on any assurance, that man can give 
 them, of the fovour of God, and the happiness of heaven. Bishop 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft' s Vindication and Defence.^ 59 
 
 R. is angry with us, — [a very unepiscopal passion this, Bishop!]— 
 because we deny all these pretensions; and warn the i)eople against 
 them. As for ourselves, it is impossible for us to partake of his 
 emotion. There is something so mock heroic in all this blustering 
 dignity, this pomp and parade, that our greatest difficulty is to re- 
 frain from holding up the whole thing to ridicule. The serious- 
 ness of the general subject, and reflection on the mischief done by 
 such arrogant claims, often suddenly change our disposition to 
 latighler into sorrow and mourning. It shall be for a lamentation 
 that ministers of religion, in this enlightened age, are running back 
 into the darkness of the 12th century; and that any of our coun- 
 trymen allow prejudice so to sway their minds, that they admit the 
 claims of men, who set up to be accredited agents of heaven^ and 
 substitutes of Jesus Christ. 
 
 That these are the claims of bishop R. and his high churchmen, 
 is abundantly evident from every part of his book. The following 
 may serve as a specimen. 
 
 " What Presbyterian or other'dissenter, will risk the purchase of property 
 from a distant owner, by power of attorney, upon the mere assertion of the 
 agent that he is empowered to convey the title ? Know you of an)', who 
 would not require to see the power of attorney — that it was in due form of 
 law, and such as would bind the principal, before he paid tlie price, or even 
 became bound for it? And know you not of thousands, who bargain for the 
 rich inheritance of the gospel for themselves and their families, without the 
 slightest security, beyond the mere say so of the agent ? Alas, how very 
 true are our Saviour's words " that the children of this world, are in their 
 generation, wiser than the children of light." Episcopalians present these 
 doctrines to their hearers, in the full persuasion, that the church, the minis- 
 try and the sacraments, are as distinctly and truly appointments of God, in 
 order to the salvation of sinners, as the faith of the gospel ; and that onU' 
 as these are united in the profession of religion, can the hope thereby given 
 to man, be worthy of the name of assurance. Episcopalians consider the 
 grace and mercy of the gospel, as matters of strict covenant stipulation ; as 
 bound up with the authority to dispense them, as iiiseparable from that au- 
 thority ; and only by virtue of that authority (with reverence be it spoken) 
 pledging the glorious source of all mercy and grace to his creatures. But 
 they presume not to pass beyond their written warrant, either to extend or 
 to circumscribe the mercy of God ; they know what is promised, and on 
 what conditions, and of that only do they venture to speak. Those persons 
 who profess to be acquainted with the secret decrees of Almighty God, may 
 also be acquainted with the extent and the rule of liis uncovcnanted mercy, 
 and prefer it to that which is promised ; but Episcopalians dare not thus 
 speculate on eternity — and they feel themselves well supported in present- 
 ing and pressing this distinction upon their hearers, by the whole analogy 
 of scripture." — pp. 31, 32. 
 
 And here, since the bishop J)uts the matter on this ground, we 
 demand that he shows us his power of attorney duly authenticated. 
 He talks much of pretense titles: let him give us, and the good 
 people of the country (who are called on to submit to the spiritual 
 authority of himself and his brethren) let him give us all, indisput- 
 able evidence that he has received authority to assure us of salva- 
 tion, when we receive the sacraments at his hands. Nothing short 
 of literal compliance will satisfy us, or ought to satisfy the people. 
 As our warranted hopes of salvation depend on our receiving the 
 sacraments from the accredited agents of heaven, we have a right 
 to require him to produce his credentials signed and sealed, so as 
 8 
 
60 Sevicw uf Bishop Eavenscrqft's Vindication and Defence* 
 
 to remove all possibility of doubt. Let him un(lerstantlj too, how- 
 far this demand goes. We will state it distinctly, 
 
 1. An unbaptized person is not in the church: but, none but true 
 ministers have a right to baptize. — The bishop then must show 
 that he received legitimate baptism; otherwise he is out of the 
 church. But to prove this, he must show that the man who bap- 
 tized him, received legitimate baptism; for a man out of the church 
 cannot bring another in, otherwise Lot or Melchizedeck might have 
 administered circumcision, which the bishop affirms they could not 
 do. And thus must he go back to the days of the Apostles, proving 
 in every case the legitimate baptism of every minister in the line. 
 But we are right sure the bishop, with all his aids, cannot do this. 
 For in the first place, it is well known that during the dark ages of 
 popery, not only were duly qualified priests permitted to baptize, 
 but even laymen, and in some cases a very convenient and useful 
 class of old women. And what is equally bad, among the changes 
 which have taken place in the church, there is every reason to be- 
 lieve that bishops and archbishops too, were baptized by dissenters. 
 This was unquestionably the case wilh that most admirable man 
 archbishop Leighton, with archbishop Seeker, wh";se works no 
 man can read without both pleasure and profit, and with Tillotson, 
 the glory of the church of England. These instances occur at the 
 moment; research would probably furnish many more. 
 
 2. However legitimate a man's baptism, if he has not been epis- 
 copally ordained, he has no right to administer the ordinances; and 
 
 ^ can give no assurance of salvation. The bishop then must embrace 
 in his proof, evidence that every man in the line between him and 
 St. Peter, vvas not only baptized in due form, but so ordained that 
 there can be no flaw in the character of authority impressed on him. 
 But if he is as well acquainted with the history of the English church 
 as he ought to be, he will not dare to deny that there have been 
 ministers in that church, who were ordained by Presbyteries. 
 
 3. As none but a bishop, according to our author, can impress 
 the character of authority, the right reverend Doctor must go back 
 from himself to the Apostles, and give not a list made up according 
 to probable conjecture — this cannot satisfy us where our hopes for 
 eternity are concerned — but unequivocal evidence in every case, 
 that each bishop in the line, was duly baptized, duly confirmed, diily 
 ordained deacon, dtdy ordained priest, duly consecrated bishop. 
 The break of a single link destroys the whole of this long chain. 
 Assumption won't do — We cannot admit conjectures and probabili- 
 ties. Our souls are at stake. Our hopes of heaven depend on our 
 knowing the truth. Do not tell us, then, that the thing can easily 
 be done — but do it. 
 
 Really the bishop must summon to his aid more lawyers and bel- 
 ter historians, than have yet given him assistance, or we and the 
 good people of North Carolina, will have to wait long before 
 our doubts are removed. Many we fear will die, before the title 
 papers can be made out. 
 
 No reader of bishop R's. book can say that we have required 
 more than his principles, fairly interpreted, render necessary. 
 We then repeat our demand — Let us see; let the world see the bish- 
 
Beview of Bishop Ravenscroft^s Vindication and Defence, 6t 
 
 op^s poxeer of attorney fully authenticated. If he will not comply with 
 this demand; if neither charity to us, nor a regard to his own con- 
 sistency can bring out the document, let him say no more about pre- 
 ie7ice titles. But let the plain man of common sense, look at the 
 New Testament, and say, do our hopes of heaven depend on a broken 
 reed like this? 
 
 Every intelligent reader has perceived that a material point of 
 difference between bishop R. and us, regards the purpose and 
 powers of the ministry of the gospel. Well inf^ormed christians of 
 every denomination agree that the church is the same in all ages — ■ 
 that it is 07ie — that it is the will of Christ, the Head, that there 
 should be teachers in this church — and that it is their appropriate 
 business to administer the sacraments, as signs and seals of the cov- 
 enant of grace. But bishop R. errs most grievously in supposing 
 that the power and authority of the standing and perpetual officers 
 of the church, are the same, with the power and authority of the 
 extraordinary officers, appointed for special and extraordinary pur- 
 poses. It did not suit the wise designs of our Lord to commit his 
 doctrine to writing. He made his revelation gradually, as men 
 were able to bear it. Until this religion was written in a book for 
 the instruction of all, it was indispensably necessary that inspired 
 men should authoritativel}' declare the will of Christ, or, to use the 
 bishop's language, should be substitutes of Christ on earth. This 
 was the case with the apostles. But when they were removedj 
 their writings were put in their place. The New Testament suc- 
 ceeded to the apostolic administration. It contains the doctrine of 
 Christ. It possesses the power, lodged no where else, of authori- 
 tatively declaring the will of Christ, and determining precisely what 
 men must believe and do, that they may be saved. Does any pro- 
 testant Bishop dare deny this? However he may boast of apostolic 
 succession, does he presume to put himself in the place of an apos- 
 tle, and by his authority bind the consciences of men? Is he not 
 obliged to resort to the word of God for this purpose? If, in igno- 
 rance o{ sacred Hcrmeneutics, — We beg pardon, the bishop does not 
 like this word — if in ignorance of the true method of expounding 
 scripture — a case that has often occurred — he should mistake the 
 meaning of God's word, does his episcopal authority bind men to 
 receive his mistake as divine truth? And if an humble Presbyteri- 
 an or Congregationalist states, in his exposition, the precise mean- 
 ing of the sacred writer, the very doctrine of Jesus Christ, is there 
 no authority in this statement? Let the bishop weigh these ques- 
 tions well. The apostles, as men commissioned by the Lord Jesus, 
 and inspired with his Spirit, so as to be able infallibly to declare his 
 will, could in strict propriety of speech say "We are ambassadors 
 for Christ," &;c. ; we take the place of Christ, and for him declare 
 the truth of God. The apostles delivered the terms dictated by 
 their master, committed them to writing, and published them to the 
 world: so that now they are equally accessible to all. The case of 
 ordinary ministers of the gospel is very different. They bring no 
 new terms: they reveal no truths unknown before: they make no 
 new discoveries in religion. But their simple business as preach- 
 ers iSj to assist their fello^v men in understanding the terms of gal v?.- 
 
C:i Review of Bishop RavenscroJV s Vindicatinn and Defence. 
 
 (ion, and to persuade all men to embrace them as they are revealed 
 in the gospel. — The whole authority is lodged in the gospel as a reve- 
 lation of the xsaillofGod; and not an atom of it in man. The case is 
 the same in regard to the sacraments. The observance of them is 
 binding because they were instituted by Christ. They are effica- 
 cious, because they convey to the mind of the believer, under the 
 influences of the Holy Spirit, in a very impressive manner, the 
 truths of Christ's religion. They strengthen the faith of the receiv- 
 er, not because they are administered by man, but because they are 
 God's seals, annexed by him to his own covenant. Any other view 
 of this subject is mystical; is popish; nourishes superstition; and 
 serves eflectually to increase undue clerical power. With an in- 
 quiring mind too, the high church notions nmst produce serious 
 doubts, and very troul)lesome anxieties. For unless the preacher 
 always carries with him his duly authenticated po-wer of attorney, 
 there will in some case or other arise a question in the mind of the 
 receiver, whether the administrator bears the character of authori- 
 ty in unbroken succession from the days of the Apostles. The dif- 
 ference between the bishop and his reviewer, in regard to this whole 
 matter, may be thus stated in contrast. 
 
 Reviewer. Having been appointed 
 a teacher in the church of Christ, I 
 do declare unto you that such and 
 such ai'e the doctrines of Christ as 
 revealed in the Bible. Beheve them, 
 720^ because of my ~^'ord, but because 
 they are the doctriue of Christ. It is 
 this which gives them their whole 
 authority to bind your consciences, 
 and regulate your faith. The author- 
 ity I repeat is not in the man but in 
 the word. I speak as unto wise men 
 — Search the scriptures, and judge 
 ye, what I say. 
 
 Jieviewer. As a teacher of Christ's 
 religion, I remind you that he has es- 
 tablished a church on earth, which 
 you are bound to enter, that you may 
 partake of all the helps and encour- 
 agements which he has provided for 
 his people. And having first given 
 yourself to the Lord, you must then 
 give yourself and yours unto us, ac- 
 cording to the will of God. 
 
 Revietoer, As a minister of the 
 gospel I teach that Jesus Christ ap- 
 pointed the sacraments as signs, to 
 represent the great truths of his re- 
 ligion ; and as seals, by which he 
 gives assurance of liis grace and mer- 
 cy. You are to receive these as 
 Chrisi'a sacraments ; as signs of his 
 truth and ^eah of his favour ; and in 
 
 Bishop. I the authorized agent of 
 heaven, the substitute for the person 
 of Christ on earth, do declai-e that 
 the will of God is so and so; and by 
 the authority vested in me I pledge 
 the God of truth to fulfil these prom- 
 ises of his word. This is a peculiar 
 power vested in me, and in all my 
 brethren, with which no other men 
 on the earth are clothed. If there- 
 fore you would escape perditioil, and 
 cherish an authorized hope of hea- 
 ven, receive the truth as I deliver it 
 to you. 
 
 Bishop. As Christ's agent, and hav- 
 ing his authority in my hands, I re- 
 quire you to come and receive bap- 
 tism at my hands, that being thus re- 
 generated, and sealed unto the day of 
 redemption, you may be converted 
 and by partaking of the Lord's sup- 
 per at my hands may be assured of 
 salvation. And I tell you that none 
 but I and my brethren of the episco- 
 pal order can admit you into the 
 cluirch, can regenerate you, and as- 
 sure you of a title to God's coven- 
 anted mercies. 
 
 Bishop. I, the accredited agent of 
 heaven, administer to you these sa- 
 craments, whereby, as Christ's sub- 
 stitue on earth, and clothed with au- 
 thority for that purpose, " I pledge 
 the glorious source of all mercy and 
 grace" to you, and hereby I give to 
 you the assurance of salvation. And 
 1 require you to believe that there is 
 
JReview of Bishop llavenscroft*s Vindicaiioji and Defence. 63 
 
 them you are to considevUlM as pledg- no other authority on earth, save that 
 lUG HIMSELV to the humble believer, to which is vested in me and my epis- 
 do all that is there set forth and prom- copal brethren, tiuis to bind the God 
 iscd. of Heaven to the fulfilment of the 
 
 promises of his word. 
 
 Such is the difference between bishop R. and us in relation to 
 these subjects. Can it be necessary to argue the point with him? 
 Can any one read the New Testament, and doubt a moment where 
 the truth lies ? Can any one help being shocked, the bishop's 
 salvo notwithstanding, when he sees what claims are set up for 
 Episcopalians by this their fearless champion. " The Bible, the 
 Bible is the religion of protestants." The Bible is their sub- 
 stitute for Christ's person on earth; because it contains the very 
 words which he spake, the very doctrines which he taught. It is 
 there we tind " truth without mixture of error;" there is our war- 
 rant for faith, our assurance of hope, our authority for adminis- 
 tration. And the ministers of this religion are either teachers to 
 assist the people, as we said, in understanding the true meaning of 
 the word and sacraments; or they are instruments for the adminis- 
 tration of those sacraments. The vvhole authority, and power is 
 from heaven. " We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the 
 excellency of the power may be of God, and not of man." 
 
 These remarks will enable the reader, to understand what an- 
 swer we would give to such personal addresses as the following. 
 
 " Dr Rice — is this any thing like the work you say you are cornmissioned 
 by Heaven to perform ? When you baptise, do you not profess to bring an 
 alien into covenant with God, and to seal him to the day of redemption ? 
 When you preach, do you not declare the conditions of salvation, denounce 
 the punishment of sin, exhort to repentance, and instruct and build up 
 unto faith and holiness? When you administer the Lord's supper, do you 
 not negotiate afresh the pardon of the penitent, and replenish and confirm 
 the grace of worthy partakers? When you visit the sick and dying, are 
 not the consolations of religion at your disposal according to the circum- 
 stances of the case ? And in all this are you not an agent — feel you not 
 that you are an agent, deriving your warrant and authority for all you do 
 from the great head of the church, through the visible church on earth ? 
 Where then is the wrong, or the error on my part, in this view of the pur= 
 pose of the church ?"— p. 28. 
 
 Truly we have no such powers — Heaven forbid that we should 
 ever pretend to them. We seal no one to the day of redemption. Let 
 the bishop look into his New Testament and he will tind that this 
 is the othce of the Holy Spirit. We do not negotiate afresh the pardon 
 of thepenitent. This strange language implies, as far as we under- 
 stand it, what we had supposed no protestant ever claimed. The 
 work of procuring pardon is not ours, but Christ''s, " seeing he 
 ever liveth to make intercession for us;" and if any man sin, we 
 have an advocate with the Father. We have no stores of consolation 
 at our disposal, for the sick and the dying. All that we can do is to 
 direct the sinner to the Lamb of God, to set before him the truths 
 of scripture respecting the plan of salvation, and pray, on his be- 
 half, for the influences of the Holy Spirit. And this, we verily be- 
 lieve, is all that any man has it in his power to do. For the rest, 
 they are the pretensions of another age, revived. And we have 
 
C4 Review of Bis'iiop Ravenscrqft*s Vindication and Defence, 
 
 adverted to the subject to let it be seen, that the notions and claims 
 of high church in the present day, are exactly such as were intro- 
 duced, when the great corruption of Christianity was in progress. 
 We challenge any one to show in the New Testament, or in the 
 pure ages of the church any thing bearing the remotest resemblance 
 to pretensions such as are here broadly asserted. No apostle ever 
 dared to say that he by baptism sealed a man to the day of redemp- 
 tion: no apostle ever presumed to think that in administering the 
 Lord's supper, he negotiated the pardon of the penitent. Such 
 daring language was reserved for the revelation of the man of sin. 
 But here let us not be misunderstood. We believe, that bishop K. 
 uses these words in ignorance of the manner, in which they will 
 strike the ear of a protestant; and of the meaning they will nat- 
 urally convey to the mind. He is but little acquainted with prot- 
 estant theology. It is a pity that he has not the aid of an experien- 
 ced theologian in the composition of his works. Lay deputies and 
 lawyers, who mingle much in the world, are very well able to tell 
 what, in pamphlets and sermons, is too strong for the people yet to 
 hear; but as they are unacquainted with the technical language of 
 theology, with the usage of the New Testament, or the history of 
 religious controversy, they allow many a passage to pass as good 
 high church doctrine, which savours a great deal too strongly of 
 popery. This is not surprising when all things are considered. 
 In the market place in Dublin once — Ireland is the country of the 
 bishop of Limerick, and other high churchmen — it was proclaimed 
 in good hibernian brogue, " I publish the banns of marriage be- 
 tween the church of England and the church of Rome!" — A voice 
 was heard in the crowd, " 1 forbid the banns!" For what reason? 
 cried the herald. "Arrah," rejoined the other, " because the par- 
 ties are too near akin" It is even so. There is near consan- 
 guinity between high church all the world over. And it requires 
 attention and care to discriminate between what may pass for tole7'' 
 ahle protestanism among high churchmen, and downright popery — 
 Ahl Sutor, ne ultra crepidnm. 
 
 The above Anecdote is intended for every one, who makes the 
 being of the Church, and man's warranted hopes of heaven de- 
 pend on Church Order. He is not far from Popery. 
 
 This remark leads us directly to our subject. The Parity of 
 ministers of the gospel. Against this part of the polity of the Church, 
 bishop R. directs all his force. He comes on like a cloud in a dry 
 summer. The heavens grow dark, a mighty roar is heard in the 
 far off forest — we close our shutters, in apprehension of a hail- 
 storm — but «oon we perceive the return of sunshine — there was 
 nothing but wind and dust. 
 
 It is well here to state distinctly what are the sentiments held 
 by the Reviewer, in common with his brethren, on this point. 
 That there are different ojices in the church of Christ is maintained 
 by all Presbyterians. Of course they hold, that men appointed by 
 the church to one office, ought not to discharge the duties of ano- 
 ther office, to which they were 7iot appointed. A member of the 
 church, chosen to be aDeacoD,. that is appointed to distribute the 
 
Seview of Bishop EavenscroJVs Vindication and Defence, 65 
 
 charity of the church, ought not to undertake the exercise of dis- 
 cipline. A man chosen to assist the Pastor in the exercise of dis- 
 cipHne, is not therefore warranted to administer the sacraments, &c. 
 It is just so in our republic. The Legislative, Judicial, and Exec- 
 utive departments are separated, and kept distinct. The welfare 
 of the country, the preservation of liberty requires this. But these 
 different offices do not create any difference in rank, any order of 
 nobility in the Commonwealth. There is no character impressed 
 on the officers of state by their appointment. In the church, there 
 is a distinction of offices in regard to importance, that is usefulness, 
 just as in our commonwealth. And it is only in reference to this 
 idea, that we use the term dignity. But we utterly disclaim every 
 thing of ecc/esms<2caZ nobility, it is the will of Christ that there 
 should be various offices in the Church, to answer the various 
 purposes of the Christian Society. And as we have before shown 
 that the great benefits of Christianity are produced by the power 
 of truth, so we think it clear that the first, the most important of- 
 fice in the Church is that of the Teacher. He who, by the word 
 and sacraments, affords instruction to the people, is employed in 
 doing the most important service that can be performed in the 
 Church. But this is done by every minister of the gospel. There is 
 then, we maintain among all who sustain this office, a perfect equali- 
 ty. There are two important reasons, why Presbyterians earnest- 
 ly contend for this point. 
 
 1. Because they are fully persuaded that such was the polity of 
 the church as organized by the Apostles, according to the will of 
 Christ. 
 
 2. Because, the history of the church proves that the elevation 
 of men to a distinct order, and giving them rank and pozver above 
 their brethren, has done great mischief, has corrupted the simpli- 
 city of the gospel, has brought a worldly and ambitious spirit into 
 the church. It is always hazardous to entrust men with power. 
 Ecclesiastical power is of all others the most dangerous. It tyran- 
 nizes over the will, the understanding, the conscience of man. It 
 brings him to crouch before his fellow, as a representative of God, 
 as a substitute for Christ on earth; it debases him; and inflates 
 with intolerable pride and arrogance, the poor mortal, who struts 
 among his fellows, and strides over them, in all the superiority of 
 ghostly dignity. The case is widely different, when a man is ad- 
 mitted into the ministerial office, with the full understanding that 
 he is on the same level, and must remain always on the same level 
 with all his fellow teachers: that all the authority which he ever 
 can exercise instead of being vested in him is derived from the 
 word of God, which he pre;iches; that the obligation of the people 
 to believe and obey arises from this, that he preaches the word of 
 God; that the sacraments which he administers, are God's signs 
 and seals, and for this reat^on alone they are employed to signify the 
 truth, and give assurance to hope. The Presbyterians, and other 
 christian denominations then have good reason for opposing the 
 progress of prelacy in our country. "~ 
 
 But let us now hear the bishop of North Carolina. And let the 
 reader prepare for bold assertion, and for that confidence, which 
 bears down weak and uninformed minds. 
 
G6 Beviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft^s Vindication and DefencL. 
 
 *'No fact can be established by reasoning solely ; whatever then hath been 
 reasoned by the ingenuity and research of men contending for parity— is of 
 no moment, until the fact be previously established by proper evidence. — 
 And so sure am I, of the fact being the very reverse of parity, that if in 
 scripture, or in ecclesiastical history, you can point to any branch of the 
 church of Christ in the Apostle's days — or, from thence to the 15th century 
 inclusive, modelled and governed upon this principle, and acknowledged 
 in communion with the catholic or universal church, I will publicly recant 
 every word I have written or spoken on the subject. 
 
 "The establishment of imparity however does not necessarily establish 
 any particular number of orders in the ministry — two orders being as good 
 as two hundred to defeat the pretensions of parity. The question as to the 
 number oi orders in the cliurch is still open, and is as much a question of 
 fact, as that of one order only ; and on this fact I maintain, tliat the testi- 
 mony of scripture is direct for three orders in the ministry of that church, 
 which Christ purchased with his own blood, and planted and established in 
 this world by his Apostles. 
 
 "That the Apostles were ministers is clear from their own acknowledg- 
 ment — " Who then is Paul and who is Apollos — but Ministers by whom ye 
 believed" 1 Corinth. 3 — 5. " Let a man so account of us, as of the jhj/hs- 
 ?ers of Christ" 1 Corinth. 4 — 1. "Who also hath made us able ministers 
 of the New Testament" 2 Corinth. 3 — 6. From the testimony of scripture 
 then, we have these three orders existing and acting in the church from the 
 beginning. 
 
 "First — Deacons, who were ordained by the laying on the hands of the 
 Apostles, Acts 6 — 6, who were authorised to preach and baptize. Acts 8 — 
 12 — 38. Secondly — Presbyters, stiled indifferently Elders and Bishops — 
 \vhy so called is of no consequence as to the fact, they were a distinct or- 
 der from the Deacons. Thirdly — the Apostles themselves, as that order 
 from which both the others derived their commission and authority. The 
 fact then that there were three orders in tlie church of Christ, during the 
 life-time of the Apostles, is established by the irrefragable testimony of 
 scripture, and as the fact is all that we are at present concerned with, you 
 must show that I have quoted the scriptures wrong, or lose your cause. — 
 Again therefore I saj', if you can produce any branch of the church of 
 Christ, either national or particular, from the time of the Apostles to the I5th 
 century inclusive, and in communion with the church founded by the Apos- 
 tles — which was not constituted on the principle oi imparity, and which was 
 not governed by three distinct orders of ministers, 1 will surrender Episco- 
 pal preeminence to Presbyterian parily."~pp. 38, 39. 
 
 We perfectly agree with the bishop, that the question here is a 
 question of fact. So we have always considered it, and so we will 
 treat it. But all that as Presbyterians we are concerned to do is, 
 to prove that according to the appointnfipnt of Christ, (he standing 
 and perpetual ministers of the gospel are on a footing of equality. 
 It is necessary, however, to make a remark or two on the meaning 
 of the word minister: and this especially, as the substance of these 
 remarks admits of an easy application to other terms. 
 
 The original word (biaxovog) rendered minister, is a general term, 
 signifying a servant, ui aU< ndant, &<•.. and in the New Testament it 
 often occurs in this general sense. But in speaking of the constitu- 
 tion of the church of Christ, its signilication is much more limited. 
 Standing without adjuncts, as in Phil. i. 1, the word signifies Dea- 
 cons, namely such persons as are mentioned in the sixth Chapter of 
 the Acts of the Apostles, of v.'hom more in a little while. But 
 when it is put in construction with such words as, Christ, God, the 
 Lord, the Gospel, it designates religious instructors, persons who 
 preach the gospel •- as in 2 Cor. iii,, 6. " Who made us able min- 
 
lievietv of Bishop Ravenscrojfs Vindication and Jkfence. o: 
 
 isters of the New Testament" {hlfixovovg lyjg KCLiinc, hia%yim,q) 
 see also 2 Cor. vi, 4. xi, 23. Kph. iii, 7. vi, 21, and other pas- 
 sages. Now it is of ministers in this sense that we speak in this dis- 
 cussion; of men set apart to teach the christian religion, to admin- 
 ister the sacraments of the church, and do all things necessary to 
 perpetuate the religion of which they are teachers; in a word we 
 s^teak of ministers of the gospel. Concerning these we affirm tiiat 
 there is, according to the true pattern of the Apostolic Church, no 
 official inequality among them, no difference of rajik or order — 
 there are no patents of nobility granted in the Church of Christ. 
 
 But let it be remarked that if this part of Presbyterian polity 
 were utterly overthrown, still the system of diocesan prelacy 
 would not thereby be established. For that system not only re- 
 quires the existence of three orders; bishops, priests, and deacom: 
 but demands indisputable evidence that, according to the will of 
 Christ, none but a bishop as distinguished from priests and deacons 
 can ordain to the gospel ministry, administer the rite of confirma- 
 tion, he. If the bishop of North Carolina then had succeeded ac- 
 cording to his wish, and trampled Presbyterian parity in the dust, 
 still only half of his work would have been accomplished. Cut 
 let us see how he executes the first part of his work. 
 
 He gravely undertakes to prove that the Apostles were ministers. 
 In this he has beyond a doubt succeeded. For such they certainly 
 were. He then dashes to his conclusion, that there were three 
 orders in the ministry, and afterwards adduces his proofs. 
 
 1. He begins with deacons, and appears to think that in two lines 
 and a half he has settled this part of the controversy. After a 
 while, however, he resumes the subject and thus discourses. 
 
 " Do not however suppose sir, that 1 am unaware of the ground you take, 
 to obviate this plain testimony from scripture on tliese points, as matters of 
 fact — no, sir, the Presbyterian hypothesis, that the order of Deacons was 
 not a distinct clerical office, in the christian ministry, but provided exclu- 
 sively for the care of the poor, is unsupported by any thing but assertion. 
 I have proved from scripture, that the Deacons in the primitive church, 
 were solemnly set apart to that office by prayer, and imposition of the 
 Apostles hands — that they preached and baptized — that thirty years after 
 the first mention of them, and in a distant churcii, they are recognised and 
 addressed by St. Paul as an established order in the ministry. I have given 
 you scripture and fifteen centuries of ecclesiastical history, to contest this 
 as a fact, or to produce the slightest ground to believe, that they v/ere 
 chiefly, and as their proper official duty, appointed to the care of the poor 
 — or that this order, is in any sense analagous to that class of men stiled 
 Deacons in the Presbyterian system of government. And unless you can 
 do this, the 6th chapter of tl»e form of government of the Presbyterian 
 church in these United States, is bottomed on a perversion of the texts of 
 ■cripture, brought to support the assertion there made, as to the order of 
 Deacons, and is also in direct opposition to the judgment and practice of 
 the church of Christ, from the Apostles days to the reformation. Was 
 Stephen, I pray you, serving tables and waiting upon the poor like a Pres- 
 byterian Deacon, when, " full of faitli and power he did great wonders and 
 miracles among the people ?" Was such tlie occupation of Piiilip, when 
 he preached Christ to the Samaritans — converted and baptized them— was 
 he thus employed when he baptized tbe Ethiopian Eunuch, and preached 
 unto him Jesus ?"-- -pp. 41, 42. 
 
t)8 Heriew of Bishop RavenscrojV s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Let U3 now examine this subject for ourselves. The bishop ot 
 >s'orth CaroHna says, (pa. 39) that the deacons mentioned, Acts vi, 
 -> were ordained by the hiying on the hands of the Apostles." We 
 mark this word, because it is not in the text. The Apostles prayed 
 and laid their hands on the deacons. But that they ordained them, 
 in bishop R's sense of the word, is not stated in the text. Imposi- 
 tion of hands was very common among the Jews and primitive 
 christians: as when one prayed for another, or pronounced a bene- 
 diction, for designation of his person, (SsLxllXQg) he laid his 
 hands on his head. Bishop II. means by ordination the impression 
 of the clerical character, or, as we would say, induction into the of- 
 fice of christian teacher. We do utterly deny that this was done. 
 And the reason is derived from the plain facts of the case. The 
 multitude of the disciples had become so great, that it was utterly 
 impossible for the Apostles to attend to the distribution of the alms 
 of the churcl> among the poor Some partiality or negligence was 
 manifested by those who performed this service; so that native He- 
 brews had an advantage over those called Grecians. On hearing 
 this the Apostles told the brethren that it was not right, or expedient 
 (so Ovx dpearov ought to be rendered) for them to lay aside the 
 business of preaching, and attend to pecuniary affairs. This is un- 
 doubtedly thrt meaning of the original.* To prevent this inter- 
 ruption of the proper functions of the Apostles, the expedient is 
 adopted of choosing seven men, all Grecians, as is probable from their 
 names, to attend particularly to this pecuniary concern. The pro- 
 posal pleased the people; the deacons were chosen, and inducted 
 into their office — Now we ask what the office was? Bishop R. says 
 a clerical office; — they were preachers. This makes the whole 
 statement amount to this — The Apostles say, it is not right for 
 us to quit preaching and attend to the distribution of your money: 
 choose some other persons for this business: — " But we will give 
 ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." 
 The multitude in accordance v/ith these directions chose seven 
 men for this purpose, and the Apostles ordained them preachers. 
 This was indeed a strange way of getting rid of the difficulty. If 
 the bishop's book goes to a second edition, it is to be hoped that he 
 will explain to us how the appointing of seven adilitional preachers, 
 gave the Apostles more time for preaching. If they had said, it is 
 not right for us to give up the distribution of money, and spend so 
 much time in preaching; look out for some others, and we will ap- 
 point them to this service — then the bishop would have I. ad sooie 
 reason for his assertion. But be it known that the Apostles were 
 not like a great many modern bishops, who have so much to do that 
 they cannot find time to preach. No: they thought this their most 
 important business; and left pecuniary affairs to others, that is to 
 
 *Tdf$ tpane^aig hiaxOVUV. TpaTtffa is origuially a table. In 
 this connexion it signifies a counter on which money was laid. And 
 TpOt7te^t7>7$ is a money changer, a broker. The table here is, by a very 
 common figure put for what it contained, and hence the phrase quoted 
 means, to attend to money matters. 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 09 
 
 the deacons. We suppose that a man of common sense and obser- 
 vation will hardly suppose, that in order to enable one to take care 
 of money, and distribute it judiciously, it is necessary to make a 
 preacher of him. The truth is; the facts of this case, and the 
 whole reason of the measure adopted, are plainly and directly 
 against bisiiop R. It deserves to be remarked, that when the ser- 
 vice of the word, and tbe service of tables was separated, " the 
 word of God increased,'' &c. sec Acts vi, 7. But says he, these 
 deacons " were authorised to preach and baptize, Acts viii, 12 — 38. 
 It is undeniable that in the passages here referred to, Philip did 
 both preach the gospel, and baptize. No man in his senses ever 
 disputed these facts. But there is a question here of some weight, 
 which our author, in his haste to come at his conclusion, took no 
 time to determine. Did Philip perform these offices as a Deacon, 
 or as an Evangelist? Much depends on the answer to be given to 
 to this question. VVe remark, 
 
 1. It is an undeniable fact, that Philip was appointed a deacon, 
 for the express purpose of attending to the pecuniary affairs of the 
 church in Jerusalem; and no other object of his appointment is 
 there mentioned. 
 
 2. It is undeniable that Philip was not now in Jerusalem, but 
 first in Samaria; then in the wilderness with the Ethiopian Eunuch; 
 after that at Azotus; and then in other places. 
 
 3. It is equally certain that this same Philip is called in Acts xxi, 8, 
 an Evangelist. 
 
 We then deny that when Philip was at Samaria, at Azotus, at 
 Cesarea, he sustained the character, or performed the offices of a 
 deacon — He was a minister of the word, and not a minister of the 
 money table. We consider the facts of his preaching and baptizing, 
 as sufficient evidence of this. But for confirmation of the truth 
 let us consider farther, what was the proper office of a deacon in 
 the primitive church. In the New Testament, the word occurs in 
 the sense now sought for, only three times. Rom. xvi, 1. Phil, i, 1. 
 2 Tim. iii, 8 and 12. The first passage referred to mentions a 
 woman as a deacon. "I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which 
 is a servant of the church which is in Cenchrea" (oD(7av kaxovov, 
 who is a deacon; diaconissa.) We learn from Pliny's celebrated 
 epistle, X, 97, that females were employed as servants of the church 
 in his day. "I judged it necessary to inquire by torture of two 
 maid servants, whom they called ministrce, what was the truth." If 
 the bishop has at hand Cotelerius's edition of the Apostolical Fa- 
 thers, he will find an account of female deacons in Const, app. iii, 
 15. Or Bingham. Eccl Antq. will inform him that thoy assisted 
 m baptizing women, took care of the poor and the sick, and attend- 
 ed to other inferior business of the church. It will he admitted, we 
 presume, by bishop R. that the female deacon (n Siaxovog) was 
 not a clerical character. P>om the pass;ige in Phil, i, 1, we can 
 learn nothing certain as to the special matter of inquiry now be- 
 fore us. It would seem indeed, that deacons were officers in every 
 regularly organized church; and it does not appear probable that 
 there should be two distinct sets of preachers in one church: or 
 
70 Review of Bishop Ravenscrojt's Vindicalion and Defence. 
 
 that the bishops at Philippi, were lord bishops above preaching. 
 Let the reader judge of the circumstance of the case, and say 
 wliether it is at all likely that the deacons in the church at Philippi, 
 \vere ministers of the gospel. And if he thinks they were, let hitn 
 say what was the office of the bishops in that church? 
 
 Turning to (he passage in 1 Tim. iii, 8 — 13. We find something 
 to give us information. In the preceding verses the Apostle lays 
 down the qualifications of a Presbj'ter or bishop, exactly in accord- 
 ance with the nature of his office. In the words before us, he 
 )iroceeds in the same way with regard to the deacon. We say that 
 the deacon was not by his offire a teacher of religion, but a minis- 
 ter of the pecuniary or secular concerns of the church. Bishop 
 K. says he was a clergyman. Let the particulars stated by the 
 Apostle in this list of qualifications be examined one by one, and 
 see which assertion, ours or the bishop's, best suits the text. 
 A deacon must he grave (OE^VOC,.^ This is expected in any officer 
 
 of the church of Christ. 
 Not double tongued — not speaking one thing, and meaning anoUier. 
 This will suit any office-bearer in the church no matter what his 
 calling. 
 Mot given to much n;ine. A drinking deacon cannot safely be trusted 
 with money — nor can a drinking parson be tolerated in the church. 
 ,\ota lover of Jilthy lucre. This suits also every officer, and every 
 christian. But it applies most exactly, to a man who is concern- 
 ed by the nature of his office, in pecuniary aflairs. The cha- 
 racter here reprobated is explained by a Greek writer, as one 
 "who takes from those from whom he ought not, and gives to 
 those to whom he ought not." 
 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. The mystery 
 of the faith, here, is nothing more than the Christian religion; and 
 the requirement is that deacons be sincere professors of Chris* 
 tianity. 
 
 We do not then find in all this, one single syllable respecting the 
 qualifications of a teacher. — When the Apostle told us what a 
 bishop ought to be, we find him requiring qualities suited to the 
 office of a teacher of righteousness. To those which betoken the 
 sincerity of his christian profession, he adds, by the use of one com- 
 prehensive word, those which regard him as a religious instruc- 
 tor, {hthaxlixov) he must be "apt to teach:" But when the in- 
 spired writer speaks o^ deacons there is not a word of this. The 
 whole amounts to the requirement, that he be a sincerely honest 
 man, and a good Christian. 
 
 But the bishop says, that when the deacons used their office 
 well, they purchased to themselves a good degree, "that is entitled 
 themsL'lves to advancement in the ministry," &.c. (pa. 43.) The 
 words quoted are bishop R's. explanation of Paul's words in 1st 
 Tim. iii, 13, But to this interpretation we object. The original 
 word rendered a degree (jSa^fiOV fl'Olll ^aivio) signifies advance- 
 ment in any way whatever. Now we grant that if the usage of 
 later times be admitted as decisive, there is evidence enoiigh in the 
 decrees of councils that the term means advancement in office. 
 
Review of Bishop RavenscrojVs Vindication and Defence, 7 V 
 
 But it ought to be remembered that the usage of words three or 
 four hundred years after the days of Paul, when the form of the 
 Church hierarchy was moilelled according to the views of ambiti- 
 ous prelates, is a very unsatisfactory way of determining the sense 
 of a phrase as used by the Apostle himself. Accoidingly we find 
 the best interpreters, ancient and modern, giving another meaning to 
 this word. Of the ancients, w>^ mention only Tlieodoret, who ex- 
 plained this advancement {(3d^ix6v) by progress towards heaven- 
 ly honour and happintiasi: Others say "a good degree of honour — 
 so that no one hath reason to decline, nr despi-^e that officf^:" name- 
 ly the office of deacon. But if the word here means official ad- 
 vancement, it will not in the least degree serve bishop R's pur- 
 pose, for nobody in the world denies that a deacon is an officer in 
 the Church. What we deny is, thnt the deacon is a minister of 
 the gospel, a religious teacher. A deacon who in the course of 
 his service, showed himsplf to be qualified as a religious teacher, 
 has no doubt frequently been appointed to that office. This, there 
 is every reason to believe, was the case with Philip, one of the 
 seven. But that as a deacon, he was a religious teacher, we utter- 
 ly deny. We utterly deny that in the apostolical church there was 
 a system of promotion from one rank to another. The words used 
 by the Apostle do not imply this — the practice of the first ages do 
 not justify the system of three orders. 
 
 In the writings of the apostolical fathers, as they are called Bar- 
 nabas, Hermas, Clemens Romanus. Ignatius and Polycarp, we can- 
 not find the least evidence that Deacons were ministers of the gos- 
 pel, in the sense in which bishop R. and we understand the term. 
 But in Clement's 1. Ep. to the Corinthians, we find this declara- 
 tion. Chap. xlii. (Cotelerius. pa. 170.) They (i. e. the Apostles) 
 as they preached the gospel in diflerent countries and cities ap- 
 pointed their first converts (lag a7tap;^a$) the bishops and dea- 
 cons of those who should afterwards believe. This testimony we 
 hold to be in exact accordance with what we find in scripture, as 
 will be more fully considered hereafter. It shows that the apos- 
 tles considered a church as organized with only two kinds of offi- 
 cers. But did these deacons preach the gospel? Clement says 
 not a word on this subject. 
 
 In the Canons of the Apostles, for the authority of which many 
 high churchmen have vehemently contended, the rules respecting 
 the administration of Baptism, are addressed only to bishops and 
 presbyters. See Can. xli. xlii. This reference is made for the 
 sake of showing that when these canons were compiled, deacons 
 were not accustomed to baptize. 
 
 If bishop R. will take the trouble to read the Apostolical Consfi. 
 intions, he will find that the compilers of that work were very far 
 from his opinion respecting deacons. For according to them, it 
 was the business of the deacon to see that all the people took their 
 proper places in the church; that none should run about from 
 place to place, smile, whisper, or nod to each other; to see that 
 the boys who stood near the pulpit behaved well; to take their 
 places on each side of the altar with fly- flaps, to prevent flies from 
 
7£ Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 getting into the cups, and a hunrlrefl (hings of this kind. In a word, 
 according to this work, the deacons were servants of the bishops, 
 and not preachers ot the uoiii ui God. 
 
 Justin Martyr in his Ftrst Apology, uses words of which the fol- 
 lowing is a transhition, "They who among us are called deacons, 
 give the bread and wine and water, after consecration by thanks- 
 giving, to every one who is present, and carry the same to those 
 who are absent." The original of these words may be found in 
 page 83 of the Paris edition of 1742. 
 
 Oecumenius in Arts vi, says, "The Apostles laid their hands on 
 those who were chosen deacons, not to confer on them that rank, 
 which they now hold in the churcli, but that they might with all 
 diligence and attention distribute the necessaries of life to widows 
 and orphans." 
 
 It would be tedious to go on quoting testimony. It is clear that 
 deacons were originally set apart to take care of the alms of the 
 church, to distribute them fairly and judiciously; that there is not 
 a syllable in scripture which supports the opinion that they preach- 
 ed the gospel; that in speaking of their qualitications, the apostle 
 Paul gives not the slightest hint that teaching was their business; 
 that the early fathers are equally silent on this subject; and that 
 in the records of antiquity there is decisive evidence that the office 
 of the deacon was about as different from that of a minister of the 
 word, as the office of a college servitor is different from that of a 
 professor. The sixth chapter of the Form of Government of the 
 Presbyterian Church therefore is not "bottomed on a perversion 
 of the texts of scripture, brought to support the assertion there 
 made" — it is not "in direct opposition to the judgment and prac- 
 tice of the Church of Christ, from the Apostle's days to the refor- 
 mation." We earnestly advise bishop Pt. to make himself better 
 acquainted with the practice of the church, before he hazards such 
 assertions again. 
 
 But says the bishop, with an air of triumph, "Was Stephen, I 
 pray you, serving tables, and waiting on the poor, like a Presbyte- 
 rian deacon, when full of faith and power he did great wonders and 
 miracles among the people?" We answer, Were Erskine, Jen- 
 nings and Addison, ministers of the gospel, when they wrote their 
 able and unanswerable arguments in defence of Christianity? Had 
 their arguments been maintained orally, would that circumstance 
 have made the slightest difference as to their character? Any 
 christian is bound to defend religion in the best way he can, when- 
 ever it is attacked. Stephen's vindication of the truth, and his 
 confutation of the Jews, then, prove nothing as to the point before 
 us. And his working of miracles is noihing to the purpose, until 
 bishop 11. shall prove that this power was given to none in the 
 primitive church, but the clergy. — .An undertaking in which, if he 
 has any prudence, he will not, Tssith all his aids, like very well to 
 engage. 
 
 Again, he says with an equally triumphant manner, "Was such 
 the occupation of Philip, wlien he preached Clirisi to tbe Samari- 
 tans, converted and baptized them — was he thus employed when 
 he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch? &c." We reply; nobody ever 
 
Review of Bishop Havcnscrqft^s Vindication and Defence. 7S 
 
 thought he was — But was he a deacon then? Was he then fultil- 
 ling the office to which he hud been appointed; taking care of the 
 poor, and allowing leisure to the Apostles to preach the word ? 
 Most obviously he was not But being driven from Jerusalem by 
 persecution, another office was assigned to him, namely that of 
 minister of the gospel; and we find him afterwards doing the work 
 of an evangelist — an office, as we shall show, quite different from 
 that of a deacon. 
 
 In regard then to the Jlrst order in the christian ministry, We 
 have a right to say, that bishop R. has totally failed. There were 
 no preaching deacons in the days of the Apostles. If the bishop 
 will make himself as well acquainted with ecclesiastical antiquity, 
 as a bishop ought to be, he will find that this device oi preaching 
 deacons was got up for the sake of exalting the bishops. At tirst 
 all preachers as to office, were on a level. But when distinctions 
 began to be made, when a worldl}^ spirit crept in, it was found that 
 deacons might be raised from their oiiginal office to the Jirst order 
 in the ministry. Presbyters were placed next. And thus bish- 
 ops were made to feel themselves highly exalted above the laity. 
 When the work was once began, the ingenuity of men soon devised 
 additional orders. The elevation of deacons made room for the 
 office of subdeacon; and that of the bishops in process of time pre- 
 pared the way for archbishops. Until finally the Catholic Church, 
 the Family of God presented, in the long list of her officers, a 
 greater variety of ranks, than can be found in the court of any 
 earthly monarch. One of the evils of these incipient steps in the 
 corruption of ecclesiastical polity, was the high spirit wakened up 
 in the deacons. Hence the attentive reader of ecclesiastical histo- 
 ry will find complaints of the insolence and haughtiness of this or- 
 der, and attempts to bring them down to their proper level. 
 
 In bishop R's. summary mode of despritching his argument, he in 
 the next place, proceeds thus, in proof that there were three 
 orders " Secondly — Presbyters, styled indifferently Elders and 
 Bishops — why so called is of no consequence as to the fact, they 
 were a distinct order from deacons." The Apostles constituted 
 the third order. There ure two particulars in tiiis statement, in 
 ^vhich we agree with bishop R. 1, That Presbyters were styled 
 indifferently, presbyters or bisliops. 2. That they were distinct 
 from deacons: but only as to office. Deacons, as we have shown, 
 were ministers of Counters; Presbyters, of the word of God. 
 
 But that prelacy may gain any thing from the facts here stated, 
 it is necessary that its advocates shoiild prove two things. 
 
 1. That the apostles were distinct as an order, from other min- 
 isters of the Word. 
 
 2. That it was intended by the Head of the Church that this dis- 
 tinct order should continue in tlie Christian Society. Bishop R. 
 has assumed the first proposition without a shadow of evidence; and 
 has brought no satisfactory proof of the last. 
 
 But before we proceed to ttie direct consideration of this sub- 
 ject, we beg leave to offer a few additional remarks on the use of 
 words. 
 
;4 Review of Bishop Ravenscroft*s Vindicaiioii and Defence. 
 
 All the terms employed to designate officers in the church are 
 general words in use in common life. Thus apostle signifies mes- 
 senger ; bishop, means overseer; presbyter an aged man; deacon, a 
 servant, &c. These words occur in the N. Testament sometimes 
 in their ordinary or sjeiieral sense, and sometimes in what may be 
 called their official meaning. The case is the same with many 
 words applied to civil affairs, such as president, judge, &c. The 
 rule of interpretation here is, very plain. If a writer uses, deacon, 
 presbyter, bishoji, &c. in speaking of officers of the church, desig- 
 nating their persons, or describing their qualificittion, the words are 
 to be interpreted accordingly: and an attentive reader can no more 
 be at a loss to ascertain the meaning, than we are to tell whether, 
 when one uses the term judge, he means a civil officer ; or, a man 
 capable of deciding. 
 
 We observe in the next place, that the officers of the church of 
 Christ in the N. Testament, go under various names of which by 
 far the most common is Presbyler. (7ips(jl3vl£pog) It requires 
 considerable research to ascertain the precise extent of the appli- 
 cation of this term: but this is not necessary to our present pur- 
 pose. We know that it was applied to apostles and bishops. For 
 evidence we refer to 1 Pet. v, 1. "The Elders (npsalSvlspag 
 Presbyters) who are among you / exhort, who am also an elder, ^^ 
 (<SV{i.npe<j[^vlEpog a fellow Presbyter.) 2 John 1, and 3 John 1. 
 In both these pass;iges the apostle uses the same word concerning 
 himself; "The Elder to the elect lady."— "The Elder to the be- 
 loved Gaius." Hence it is manifest that the apostles called them- 
 selves Presbyters. — That bishops were called Presbyters is mani- 
 fest from Acts xx, 17, 28. Tit. i, 5—7. Bui this is universally 
 acknowledged. 
 
 Now it admits of a question whether. the .flpostle-Presb<tfters, were 
 a different order from the Bishop- Presbyters. It is our opinion 
 that they were not. We do not find any thing in the use of the 
 words, or in the claims of the apostles to warrant the contrary 
 opinion. We have before remarked, that apostle signifies messen- 
 ger. This term was applied to the i/.'S/nVc(i teachers, because they 
 were sent out immediately by Jesus Christ, to perform a particular 
 service, and furnished with particular powers of an extraordinary 
 character. In this respect, they differed from all other presbyters. 
 Still, however, they lield the same rank with otiier teachers of 
 Christianity. Our views of this subject may be thus illustrated. It 
 was once proposed, at an extraordinary period in the history of our 
 country, to make General Washington, dictator. Let us suppose 
 that, on the organization of the government of the United States, 
 t/iat suggested had been adopted. He would have then been Pres- 
 ident with all the powers conferred by the constitution, and Dicta- 
 tor with the extraordinary powers conferred for a special object by 
 the sovereign people. When this object is accomplished, these 
 powers cease. No similar powers are conferred on any of his suc- 
 cessors. They are elected under the constitution, and exercise 
 only the authority with which by that sacred instrument they are 
 invested. Now, the question is, did President Washington in the 
 
lieview of Bishop Ravenscrqft^s Vindication and Defence, 7 5 
 
 ease supposedj hold a higher rank than Presidents Jefferson, Acl=> 
 ams, Madison, &c. We say no. — And just so we think it was ia 
 the church of Christ. The apostle-presbyters such as Peter, Paul, 
 John, and others, were of the same rank or order, with other pres- 
 byters; but were sent with extraordinary powers, on an extraordi- 
 nary occasion. The decisive evidence of their possessing these 
 powers, was their immediate mission by the sovereign of the church, 
 with gifts to qualify them fully for their extraordinary work. No 
 man could sustain a claim to such mission, unless he was able to 
 show that Christ had furnished him for the work. Here is the 
 sufficient limitation and guard. The bishop-presbyters came after 
 the apostles, without their extraordinary gifts. These were un- 
 necessary; because the whole work of revelation was completed; 
 and the great office of the religious teachers was, to assist their fel- 
 low-men in understanding that system of religion, which had been 
 given by the God of mercy to all. Here then we see in the begin- 
 ning, but one order of religious teachers. In other words, there 
 was no difference of rank in the ministery of the gospel. Such 
 things suit the genius of kingly governments; the pomps and fash- 
 tons of this world; but to christians we repeat the language of the 
 Saviour, "It shall not be so among you." — Accordingly the apos= 
 ties from the ascension of their master until their death gave not 
 the slightest indication that they ever thought of this idle trump- 
 ery. They demanded nothing but submission to the will of Christ 
 their Lord, as authoritatively announced by them. They claimed 
 nothing on account of apostolical rank; but simply because they 
 were inspired, and spoke God's truth as he made it known to them. 
 In all their intercourse with their brethren in the ministry, there was 
 perfect equality, the utmost gentleness and courtesy. " Tobit and 
 his dog" were not among them.* 
 
 We have here briefly exhibited our own views of this subject. 
 Let our readers compare them with the facts recorded in the New 
 Testament and then say what becomes of bishop R's three orders. 
 
 But let it be admitted that the Apostles of Jesus Christ held a 
 higher rank in the church than other religious teachers; that they 
 belonged to a different order. Still this will serve his cause noth- 
 ing, unless he can prove that the Head of the church intended to 
 continue this superior office in the Christian Society, through every 
 age: But this we venture to assert that the bishop never can do. Om 
 this subject it gives us great pleasure to use the language of the cel- 
 ebrated Dr Barrow in his treatise of the Pope's supremacy. And 
 our readers cannot fail to see, how exactly many of the arguments 
 used by prelates against popery, suit the purposes of Presbyterians 
 and others when they reason against prelacy. Dr Barrow was a 
 very great man. None hold him in higher estimation or are more 
 ready to give him due honour than we. But yet we think it per- 
 fectly fair to use his assistance against high church principles, al- 
 
 • This expression may appear strange to our readers. We do not choose 
 to explain. It will be understood as it is intended ; and will furnisli a suf- 
 ficiently intelligible hint, for the correction of modes of speech very una^ 
 postolical, 
 
 10 
 
76 Review of Bishop liavenscrojVs Vindication and Dejence. 
 
 though at the expense of his consistency. The design of the wri- 
 ter, in the particular part of the work, from which we make the 
 following extract, is to confute the position of the papists, "that 
 St. Peter's Primacy, with its rights and prerogatives, was not per- 
 sonal but derivable to his successors." In accomplishing this pur- 
 pose, among other things he announces the following proposition. 
 
 "The Apostolical office, as such, was personal and temporary; 
 and therefore according to its nature and design not successive nor 
 communicable to others in perpetual descei:»^ence from them. 
 
 "It was, as such, in all respects extraordinary, conferred in a 
 special manner, designed for special purposes, discharged by special 
 aids, endowed with special privileges, as was needful for the pro- 
 pagation of Christianity, and founding of Churches. 
 
 "To that Office it was requisite, that the Person should have an 
 immediate designation and commission from God; such as St. Paul 
 so often doth insist upon for asserting his title to the Office; Paul an 
 Apostle, not from men, or by man — not by men, saith St. Chrysostom 
 this is a property of the Apostles. 
 
 "It was requisite that an Apostle should be able to attest con» 
 cerning our Lord's Resurrection or Ascension, either immediately 
 as the twelve, or by evident consequence as St. Paul. Thus St. 
 Peter implied, at the choice of Matthias, Wherefore of those men 
 
 xmhich have accompanied with ^ls must one be ordained to he a wit' 
 
 ness zeilh us of the Resurrection; and, Am I not (saith St. Paul) 
 an Apostle, have I not seen the Lord? according to that oi' Annanias, 
 the God of our Fathers, hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his 
 will, and see that just one, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth; for 
 thou shalt bear xmtness unto all men, of what thou hast seen and heard. 
 
 "It was needful also that an Apostle should be endowed with mi- 
 raculous gifts and graces, enabling him both to assure his authority, 
 and to execute his Office; wherefore St. Paul calleth these, the 
 inU7-ks of an Apostle, the which were wrought by him among the Corin- 
 thians in all patience (or persevering) in signs, and wonders, and 
 mighty deeds. 
 
 "It was also, in St. Chrysostom's opinion, proper to an Apostle, 
 that he should be able according to his discretion, in a certain and 
 conspicuous manner to impart Spiritual Gifts; as St. Peter and St. 
 John did at Samaria; which to do, according to that Father, was the 
 peculiar gift and privilege of the Apostles. 
 
 "It was also a privilege of an Apostle, by virtue of his commission 
 from Christ, to instruct all JVations in the Doctrine and Law of Christ; 
 He had right and warrant to exercise his function every where. His 
 charge was universal and indefinite; the whole world was his province; 
 He was not affixed to any one place, nor could be excluded from 
 any; He was (as St. Cyril calleth him) anOecumenicalJudge, and ati, 
 Instructor of all the Subcelestial Wo}-ld. 
 
 "Apostles also did govern in an absolute manner, according to 
 discretion, as being guided by infallible assistance, to the which 
 they might upon occasion appeal, and affirm, It hath seemed good to 
 the Holy Ghost and us. Whence their Writings have passed for in- 
 spired, and therefore Canonical, or certain Rules of Faith ar.d 
 Practice. 
 
Review of Bishop Ilavenscroft*s Vindication and Defence, T7 
 
 "It did belong to them to found Churches, to constitute Pastors, 
 to settle orders, to correct offences, to perform all such Acts ofSoV'^ 
 ereign, Spiritual Power, in virtue of the same Divine assistance, ac' 
 cording to the authority which the Lord had given them for edification; 
 as we see practiced by St. Paul. 
 
 "In fine, the Apostlcship was (as St. Chrysostom telleth us) a busi- 
 ness fraught with ten thousand good things, both greater than all privi- . 
 leges of grace, and comprehensive of them. 
 
 *'Novv such an office, consisting of so many extraordinary pri- 
 vileges and miraculous powers, which were requisite for the foun- 
 dation of the Church, and the diffusion of Christianity, against the 
 manifold difficulties and disadvantages, which it then needs must en= 
 counter, was not designed to continue by derivation; for it contain- 
 eth in it divers things, which apparently were not communicated, 
 and which no man without gross imposture and hypocrisy could 
 challenge to himself. 
 
 "Neither did the Apostles pretend to communicate it; they did 
 indeed appoint standing Pastors and Teachers in each church; they 
 did assume Fellow-labourers and Assistants in the work of preach- 
 ing and Governance, but they did not constitute Apostles, equal to 
 themselves in Authority, Privileges, or Gifts. For zvho knoweth not 
 (saith St. Jiusthi) that Principate of Apostleship to be preferred before 
 any EpiscopacTj? and the Bishops (saith Bellarmine, have no part of the 
 true Apostolical Authority." 
 
 This reasoning has never been, and never can be answered. The 
 apostolical office, as such, ceased at the death of the apostles. 
 They then could have no successors as such. And when they died 
 they left in the Church only those religious teachers, who, accord- 
 ing to bishop R's own words, were called indifferently presbyters 
 or bishops. Where then are the three orders of ministers of the 
 word, of whom the right reverend doctor R. speaks in terms of so 
 much confidence? 
 
 But we have not yet done with this part of our subject. The 
 bishop of N. Carolina, after having, as he supposed determined the 
 point that there were three orders in the christian ministry, ob- 
 serves, "The question however has (is) yet to be settled, to which 
 of the three orders was the ordinary power committed?" The 
 apostles had it beyond a doubt. "That it was not conferred upon 
 the Deacons you will readily admit — It must therefore have been 
 committed either to that order styled indifferently, Elders, Presby- 
 ters,* and Bishops in scripture, or to another order, distinguished 
 by possessing this, as well as other ordinary apostolical powers. — 
 On this question you assert, that the ordaining power was transfer- 
 red to the order of Presbyters. This assertion I deny as a fact, 
 and I support my denial in the following manner from the scrip- 
 tures." — pp. 39, 40. 
 
 We do assert as a fact that the ordinary power was committed to 
 those who, in scripture, are styled indifferently presbyters or bi= 
 * These are the bishop's own words, Ehlevs, Presbyters ! Why an EWer is 
 a Presbyter .• the former being the En^lith for TtpfC/Jl'Ifpog, and the lat- 
 ter being the Greek word anglecized. Is it possible that bishop R. is so 
 little familiar with his Greek Testament as not to knoAV this? Or did he ir. 
 this part get help from another, and in his h«rry ovejl'^ok tlje nustakf'. 
 
'TH Reviexv of Bishop UavmscroJVs Vindication and Dejtncc. 
 
 shops. But to whom does bishop R. assert that these powers were 
 transferred? He has no scriptural name for them. He dare not 
 affirm that they were Apostles. Every one knows they were not 
 deacons. The terms presbyter and bishop were apphed indiffer- 
 ently to those to whom he denies the ordaining power. He is 
 obliged to describe the order of men on whom the very being of 
 the church depends, the sole depositaries of that power and au- 
 thority which are connected with all man's dearest hopes, by a 
 very awkward periphrasis — Hear him! — "or to another order, dis- 
 tinguished by possessing this as well as other ordinary apostolical 
 powers!" This is indeed amazing. We are to believe, then, that 
 a being of infinite wisdom, in making a revelation of his will, when 
 the organization of the church is to be described, employed no 
 term to designate that very set of church officers, with whom he 
 connected every thing that enables us to verify the church, to rely 
 on the promises of God, or hope in his covenanted mercy! Really 
 the bishop has greatly inflamed our desire to see his power of attor- 
 ney. We have an intense curiosity to see what title is given to 
 him. Does it purport that he is a clergyman "of another order," 
 &c.? — But we ask our readers, is it credible that a system of gov- 
 ernment should be framed, without giving a name to the very offi- 
 cers who should possess the whole power, and on whom the very 
 being and all the benefits of the community should depend? Was 
 any such thing ever known in the world before or since? — But we 
 have met with circumlocutions like this before now. We under- 
 stand them. High churchmen have a sufficiently strong desire that 
 the people should think them Apostles. But even the men among 
 them, who boast that "they blink at nothing" are rather ashamed to 
 put in the claim directly, and therefore beat about the bush, in the 
 manner we have seen. But what, we pray, are ordinary apostoli- 
 cal powers? The very nature of the Apostles' office, as such, was 
 extraordinary. This, Dr Barrow has most clearly proved. Take 
 away from them this part of their character, and they differ in noth- 
 ing from the men who were styled indifferently presbyters or bishops. 
 But it seems the bishop of N. Carolina can name the persons, although 
 he has no scriptural term by which to designate the offices. 
 
 ••The ordination of Timothy, not to say his consecration," is marked by St. 
 Paul, with such a peculiar character, as is in my view, utterly incompatible 
 with the parity you contend for. Authority is given him over the doctriiiej 
 the ministers and the members of the church at Ephesus — *'l besought thee 
 to abide still at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some, that they teacl: 
 no other doctrine." 1 Tim. 1—3, from the 11th to the 18th ver. tlie Apos- 
 tle refers to his own commission, as entrusted with the Gospel, and at the 
 18th verse transfers it to Timothy, "This charge I commit unto thee son Tim- 
 othi/." In the 2d chapter he gives him directions as to the qualification of 
 Bishops and Deacons, and at the 14th ver. states the object of his writing 
 
 * We commend the reserve of the right reverend author. It was well for 
 bim not to say Consecration. Because the term induces one to refer to 
 scripture; and there we search in vain for any thing like consecration to the 
 episcopal office. There is not a syllable in the word of God which intimates 
 any thing like different kinds of ordination for ministers of different orders. 
 
llevicw of Bishup UaveiiSLvojVs Vindication and Defence, f S 
 
 to him, in such wise as clearly designates his supreme authority in tha''; 
 church. — "These things write I unto thee hoping to come unto thee shortly, 
 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know hoiv thou oughtest to behave thyself 
 in the church of God." An expression which cannot be construed of per- 
 sonal deportment when engaged in the public duties of Religion, and must 
 therefore refer to the exercise of iiis Episcopal authority over the church. 
 In the 5th chap, accordingly, Timothy is directed "Rebuke not an Elder, 
 but entreat him as a father" ver. 1 — "Against an Elder receive not an accu- 
 sation, but before two or three witnesses," ver. 19. His authority over the 
 members generally is evinced by the whole chapter, particularly by ver. 20 
 — "Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear." And that 
 the power to ordain was committed to him singly is clear from both the 
 Epistles, particularly 1 Tim. 5 — 22, and 2 Tim. 2 — 2, "Lay hands suddenly 
 on no man" — "The things thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the 
 same commit thou to faitliful men, who shall be able to teach others also.' " 
 —p. 40. 
 
 "This view of the subject, as the plain scriptural view of it, is confirmed 
 by the Epistle of this same Apostle to Titus, "For this cause left I thee in 
 Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain 
 Elders in every city, as / had appointed thee," chap. 1 — 5. Directions are 
 then given him as to the qualifications of those to be ordained, and as to 
 his general duty as a governor of the church, of the same character as those 
 given to Timothy, with this particular charge, *A man that is an heretic, 
 after the first and second admonition, reject.* " — p. 41. 
 
 So then Timothy and Titus were of that nameless order of meiis 
 who with the ordaining power, possessed the other ordinary apos- 
 tolical powers. It deserves remark, however, that before the 
 bishop gets through the 41st page he forgets his cautious, circumla- 
 cutary mode of speaking, and tells us plainly, "that even in the 
 lifetime of the Apostles, the episcopal office was instituted in the 
 church, by the Apostles themselves, as a distinct order of ministers." 
 We must suppose then that the episcopal office was different from 
 the office held by bishops; for according to our author's own show- 
 ing, the term bishop was used indiscriminately with the term elder 
 or presbyter. The bishop's office then was the elder's office; and 
 the Episcopal office was something else. This is strange enough. 
 But it was all done to accommodate the modesty of diocesan bishops; 
 •who were designed to be successors of the Apostles, possessing their 
 ordinary powers and honours, but yet who could never bring them- 
 selves to take their names'. Nevertheless Timothy and Titus were 
 of that other order who are now called bishops. But really we do 
 not see how the prelate of North Carolina can free himself from the 
 charge of having proved that there were four orders in the Chris- 
 tian ministry. 1 . Apostles. 2. '■'■Another order.'" 3. Presbyters or 
 bishops. 4. Deacons. Either he must say that the other order was 
 the apostolic, or he must acknowledge that his church wants one of 
 the four. But we leave him to settle this point as he can. He in- 
 sists on it that Timothy and Titus were bishops in his sense of the 
 term, and labours hard to prove his position. Let us see how he 
 manages the case. 
 
 1. "The ordination of Timothy is marked with such a peculiar 
 character as is utterly incompatible with ministerial parity." But 
 the good gentleman does not think fit to tell us how this case is. — . 
 We hear not a word about Timothy's ordination in any thing that 
 follows. And if we turn to the account which the scripture give? 
 
80 Review of Bishop Ravenscroft-s Vindkaiion and Defence^ 
 
 ti3, we find nothing at all extraordinary, nothing marked, or pecu- 
 liar in the transaction. Timothy was ordained with ((isla) the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Just such an ordination 
 as takes place a hundred times a year in the various Presbyterian 
 and Congregational churches in this country. 
 
 2. "Authority is given to Timothy over the doctrine, the minis- 
 ters, and the members of the church at Ephesus. 'I besought 
 thee to abide still at Ephesus that thou raightest charge some that 
 they teach no other doctrine.' 1 Tim. i, 3." We take it for 
 granted that bishop K. never for a moment supposed that this en- 
 treaty that Timothy should abide still at Ephesus was his ordina- 
 tion; (not to say consecration) as bishop of the church in that place. 
 And we ask any one who understands the force of words, to 
 decide whether the terms used by the Apostle suit the hypothesis 
 that Timothy sustained the episcopal office among the Ephesian be- 
 lievers. If so why should Paul beseech him to remain at Ephesus? 
 Where should a bishop be, but in his diocese? Is it to be admitted 
 for a moment, that such a man as Timothy would think of leaving 
 the people committed to his care? Surely me i are hard run for 
 evidence that Timothy held the Episcopal office at Ephesus, when 
 they appeal to this passage for proof. But let us compare the cir- 
 cumstances mentioned here, with the record found in the Acts of 
 the Apostles. When Paul was going to Macedonia (1 Tim. i, 3,) 
 he left Timothy at Ephesus. This journey is mentioned Acts xx, 2. 
 But in a few months we find that Timothy is Paul's travelling com- 
 panion. Does this allow us to suppose that Timothy was bishop of 
 Ephesus? The plain state of the case is this. Paul made a hurried 
 departure from Ephesus, on account of the disturbance raised by 
 Demetrius the silversmith. The church there was in a disturbed 
 state, and was not sufficiently settled in all its parts. Timothy 
 wished to accompany bis spiritual father; but Paul having for at 
 least seven years, experienced the fidelity and zeal of Timothy, en- 
 treated him to stay for a time at Ephesus to assist in maintaining 
 the doctrine which had been taught by the Apostle, against false 
 teachers, and to complete the organization of the church. But as 
 it is probable that the Apostle had not time fully to charge Timothy 
 in relation to the important functions which he was called to dis- 
 charge; therefore very shortly after his departure, he wrote 
 this Epistle, for the purpose of giving him full instruction as to his 
 duty. It was then, unquestional)ly, a temporary service which 
 Timothy was called on to discharge. 
 
 The bishop proceeds, "from the 1 1th to the 18th verse, the Apos- 
 tle refers to his own commission, as entrusted with the gospel, and 
 at the 18th verse, entrusts it to Timothy. 'This charge I commit 
 U7ito thee son Timothy.'' " The bishop is most evidently mislead here 
 by the usage of the English word charge; as though it were an office 
 committed; but what will be his surprise when he comes to look at 
 his Greek Testament and finds there the word TtapayytXLa? This 
 word occurs only five times in the New Testament, and in every 
 instance in the sense of commandment, order, either in the way' 
 of prohibition cr precept, see Acts y, 28. xvi, 21. I Thes?. iv. 2v 
 
Jieview of Bishop Raven$crqft*s Vindicaiion and Defence, Si 
 
 I Tim. i, 5, 18. In this last passage it means a direction or prc= 
 cept respecting the discharge of Timothy's duty. The sense is this, 
 1 left you for the time, in my place in Ephesus, that you may charge 
 certain persons (7t(Tf. verse 3) not to teach doctrine contrary to 
 mine; and I commend this direction to your attention. I entrust you 
 with the execution of this commandment. There is no ordination 
 here, no episcopacy. 
 
 "In the second chapter, (continues our prelate) he gives him di= 
 rections as to the qualifications of Bishops and Deacons." There 
 is a mistake here. The second chapter contams directions in re- 
 lation to public worship. The Apostle prescribes to Timothy here, 
 what he thought necessary concerning the subjects of prayer; and 
 we just observe in passing, that we have abundant evidence that 
 there was no liturgy in use in the church at Ephesus, otherwise 
 these directions would have been quite superfluous. — In the third 
 chapter we have a statement of the qualifications of bishops and dea- 
 cons. But what inference at all advantageous to his cause, bishop 
 R. can derive from this statement we are utterly unable to see. — 
 Suppose we admit that Timothy had full power to ordain (of himself) 
 bishops and deacons in the church at Ephesus, nothing follows more 
 than Presbytei'ians have admitted a hundred times. They do not 
 deny the fact. But the conclusion derived from it, that therefore 
 Timothy was prelate of Ephesus. We leave this then just here 
 for the present, intending hereafter to show what Timothy really 
 was. 
 
 The 14th verse of this chapter is thought by the author under 
 review, to contain decisive evidence that Timothy had supreme au- 
 thority in the church at Ephesus. "These things write 1 unto thee 
 hoping to come unto thee shortly, but if I tarry long, that thou 
 mayest know how to behave thyself in the church of God." This 
 it is said must refer to the exercise of Episcopal authority. But 
 why Episcopal authority? The words will suit an evangelist or a 
 presbyter just as well as a bishop. How can a man bring himself 
 to draw particular conclusions from general terms in this way?— 
 But bishop R. connects this passage with the first verse of the fifth 
 chapter, as evidence of his facts, "Rebuke not an Elder, but entreat 
 him as a father." It is evident that the bishop did not look at the 
 context here, or he could not have supposed that in this case there 
 was implied any exercise of episcopal authority: for elder in the 
 text means an aged man. Surely a presbyter may exercise church 
 discipline as well as a bishop. 
 
 We pass on. "Against an Elder receive not an accusation, but 
 before two or three witnesses, verse 19." Here is thought to be 
 dicisive evidence of Episcopal authority, for in this case the term 
 Elder is admitted to be an officer in the church, such an one as in 
 the 3d chapter is called a bishop. But if one will look at the whole 
 case, he will find it much too slender as a foundation for his hope 
 of covenanted mercy. By comparing the 19th and 20th chapters 
 of Acts with the first Epistle to Timothy, and recollecting that it 
 was not the custom of Paul or any of the Apostles to ordain novices 
 (new converts) as ministers of the Gospel, we shall f.nd that the 
 
82 Review of Bishop RavenscrojVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 case was thus. Ephesus was at that perioci a great city, and exert- 
 ed of course great influence on the whole of Asia Minor. It was 
 very important that the teachers of rehgion there should be well 
 tried and able men. During the Apostle's abode with the Ephe- 
 sians, he appears not to have appointed any presbyters or bishops, 
 waiting no doubt to find proper men and give them suitable train- 
 ing. But as his abode there was abruptly terminated, he left 
 Timothy as we have before seen, to take his place for a time and 
 complete his work. It would seem that the whole business of or- 
 ganizing the church was to be accomplished, and Timothy receives 
 this letter from Paul, not merely for the purpose of individual in- 
 struction but for the sake of giving to others the rule by which a 
 church is to be governed. For this purpose he begins with assert- 
 ing his Apostolical office, as was his custom generally in his epistles; 
 and then repeats a charge before given respecting false teachers, 
 who had it seems visited Ephesus, the names of two of whom, he 
 mentions. In the second chapter, he gives directions respecting 
 the prayers of the church; and towards the close of it forbids the 
 women to officiate as public teachers. In the third chapter, we 
 find instructions respecting the officers of the church. 1. The 
 teachers, called Bishops or Presbyters. 2. The Deacons. To- 
 wards the close of this chapter, the Apostle states the fundamental 
 truth of the gospel system, — * The pillar and ground of the Gospel is 
 the Divine Nature of Jesus Christ. 
 
 This leads to a prediction of a lamentable departure from the 
 truth by religious teachers at some future time. The apostle then 
 (iv, 6.) returns to the fundamental truth stated iii, 16, and insists 
 that it should be urged with all diligence. In iv, 9, he returns to 
 the same important doctrine, and insists that it be faithfully taught. 
 After adding some particular exhortations to Timothy, he proceeds 
 in the 5th Chapter to speak of the right ordering of the church in 
 regard to the support of widows, the stipends of Presbyters, the 
 exercise of discipline in regard to Elders and others; and various 
 
 * We agree with those critical editors of the New Testament, who make 
 the third chapter close at the end of the 15th verse, or at any rate place a pe- 
 riod here. The words translated, ^i/Zar and ground of the truth, are not to 
 be referred to the clmrch : OlVAX)^ is literaHy a pillar ; and metaphorically 
 it is that particularly on which any thing rests, a fundamental doctrine :-■=- 
 iopOUQ[l(X is a basis, a foundation ; and in its metaphorical sense is synony- 
 mous with the former word. ' A/lj^S'tt'ttg here is doubtless the gospel, as a 
 system of truth. But in what sense is the church the pillar, or the foundation 
 of the gospel? If it were affirmed that the gospel is the foundation of the 
 church, we could understand the metaphor perfectly. The truth tiiat Jesus 
 is the Christ the son of the living God, according to Peter's confession, is the 
 rock on which the church is built: it is tlie great fundamental truth. But it 
 13 harsh and extravagant to say that the church is the basis or support of the 
 gospel. Accordingly we read the passage before us thus—" The fundamen- 
 tal truth of the gospel— and confessedly great is the mystery of godliness- 
 is, God was manifested in the flesh, justified by the spirit, seen by angels, be- 
 lieved on by the world, (Gentiles) received into glory: (but the spirit express- 
 ly saith that in the last time some shall depart from the faith," &c.— continu- 
 ing the parenthesis to the close of the fifth verse ; and with the sixth resum- 
 ing the subject of the 16th verse of the 3d chapter. 
 
Retiew of Bishop RavenscrojL^s Vindicaiion and Defence. 83 
 
 particular matters concerning Timothy personally. From these 
 the Apostle proceeds in the Gth Chapter to other points in the ar- 
 rangements and regulations of the church, such as the duty of ser- 
 vants who belonged to the church, whether their masters were be- 
 lievers or unbelievers: and with this he severely condemns any 
 who might teach any other doctrine. With particular exhortations 
 to Timothy he mingles other general admonitions to the end of the 
 epistle. Now we ask any judicious reader to determine whether 
 the whole epistle, taken in all its connexions, does not clearly im- 
 ply this, that Timothy was left as Paul's assistant at Ephesus to or- 
 ganize a church, and make under the instructions of the Apostle 
 the necessary regulations there; and whether this epistle was not 
 intended for the use of the church of that place, and for all other 
 churches and ministers in all ages, as well as for Timothy. And 
 does not the whole history of the case suit the Presbyterian hypo- 
 thesis much better than the Episcopal? The former is this; that 
 Timothy was an Evangelist; that is a minister of religion furnished 
 with extraordinary powers for the purpose of assisting the Apostles 
 in planting the gospel, and completing the organization of churches; 
 who when he had finished the work in one place, went to another. 
 The latter is, that Timothy was appointed diocesan bishop of 
 Ephesus, with Presbyters under his episcopal authority. In set- 
 tling this question, let the reader turn again to Acts xx, 17 — 28,^ 
 and read the charge given by Paul to the elders or bishops of 
 Ephesus. It is beyond a doubt that when Paul sent to Miletus for 
 the Presbyters of the church, Timothy, instead of being in the 
 bishopric which has been so kindly given to him, was Paul's trav- 
 elling companion. This whole charge then is given to these men in 
 presence of their supposed bishop. Paul charges them to take heed 
 to that flock over which the Holy Spirit had made them bishops, to 
 govern it well, &c. In a word he addresses them just as though 
 the whole business of teaching.and governing belonged to them ; he 
 speaks of the church as committed to them by the Holy Spirit and says 
 not a word; gives not a single hint of any duty to be performed to 
 their diocesan Timothy, of any submission to his authority? In page 
 73, bishop R. says that "St. Paul knew too vvell what belonged to 
 clerical propriety, to have addressed an epistle to any church col- 
 lectively, that was under the care of its own bishop !" But where 
 was his clerical propriety in this case? Before the face of the bish- 
 op of Ephesus to speak to his Presbyters as though the whole au- 
 thority of the church were in their hands! — to address them as if 
 all the interests of that church were entrusted to their care. What 
 a flagrant breach of clerical propriety. The truth is on the pres- 
 byterian hypothesis, the whole affair nppears perfectly easy and 
 natural, and every part of the epistle is congruous with the history 
 in the Acts of the Apostles: but on the episcopal hypothesis man}-- 
 things are strained and detorted. The prescriptions then respect- 
 ing ordination, and discipline were not given to Timothy as bishop, 
 but through him as an evangelist for the benefit of all who might 
 be employed in the government of the church. They, every one 
 of them, are iust as suitable to a Presbyterian minister, as to an 
 11 
 
Si Jieview of Binhop RavenscrojVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Episcopalian. And there is nothing in their being addressed singly 
 to Timothy, when we recollect that he had been temporarily left 
 by Paul at Ephesus for the organization of the church. It is also 
 reasonable to believe that Timothy hastened too much to do his 
 work, that he might rejoin his beloved friend the Apostle; and that 
 this was the reason why Paul, though he was anxious to pursue 
 bis journey to Jerusalem, stopped at Miletus and sent for the pres- 
 byters of the church of Ephesus, that he might fully instruct them, 
 and give them a suitable charge. Had Paul ordained these men 
 during his abode among them, he no doubt would have given all 
 these charges before. But admitting that their ordination was per- 
 formed by Timothy, we can easily see why Paul in his solicitude 
 would even delay his journey, for the purpose of seeing these pres- 
 byters, and giving them charges and instructions, of which we have 
 a specimen in the 20th Chap, of Acts. If Timothy then was or- 
 dained bishop of Ephesus, he was a bishop without presbyters un- 
 til he made them himself. And this is a new case in the history of 
 the hierarchy. A bishop in pariibus infideUum, has been heard 
 of before now; but a diocesan bishop without clergy under him is 
 a perfect anomaly in high church. 
 
 But let us now advert to the account given us in the New Tes- 
 tament of the Life of Timothy, and see whether it conforms to the 
 notion of his being a diocesan bishop or not. It ought to be re- 
 membered that according to the hypothesis of our author, there 
 were seven such bishops at no great distance from each other, 
 namely, the bishops of Ephesus, of Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, 
 Sordis, Philadelphia and Laodicea. Of these, five bishoprics lay 
 within a territory but little if any larger, than one of the counties 
 in the State of North Carolina. Bishops were more numerous in 
 the ancient church than among modern hierarchists. But not now 
 to dwell on this subject: Timothy was bishop of Ephesus. Well, 
 his business was to preach the word, and govern his church. But 
 instead of doing this, we find him proceeding in the following man- 
 ner. After Paul had taken him as a companion, he went from 
 Lystra to Phrygia and Galatia; thence through Mysia to Troas. 
 From Troas he went to Macedonia, Acts xvii, 1, and visited 
 Samothracia, Neapolis, Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessaloni- 
 ca. From Thessalonrca he journeyed to Berea, A. D. 63; thence 
 to Athens; and thence to Thessalonica, A. D. 54, thence through 
 Macedonia to Corinth, (Acts xviii, 6.) After staying near two 
 years at Corinth, he accompanied Paul to Ephesus, and probably 
 from that place to Jerusalem (A. D, 56.) From thence he went 
 through Phrygia and Galatia again to Ephesus, (A. D. 57.) From 
 Ephesus he was sent to Corinth, (A, D. 59) through Macedonia. 
 He returned from Corinth to Ephesus (in the year 60.) He is 
 here left by Paul for a time, and in three or four months goes to 
 him into Macedonia; whence he accompanies Paul on his journey to 
 Jerusalem. We do not know ivhat became of him, after this; but 
 probably he accompanied Paul in his journey. However this may 
 be, we know that he was with the Apostle at Rome, when he 
 wrote to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon. And 
 also that he was present when the Apostle wrote his epistle to the 
 
Seviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft^s Vindication and Defence. 85 
 
 Hebrews. After this, we hear nothing more of him in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 The accounts given by the Fathers of Timothy, afford no infor* 
 mation to be relied on by an impartial judge of historical testimo- 
 ny. The passage quoted from the Epistles of Ignatius, if we ad- 
 mit them to be genuine, proves nothing but that Timothy was 
 one of the teachers of the Church in Ephesus in the time of the 
 Apostles. — And this no reader of the New Testament ever for a 
 moment thought of doubting.* 
 
 Eusebeus only says " it is reported"! that Timothy was ap= 
 pointed by Paul first bishop of the Ephesians. Now Eusebius 
 lived more than three hundred years after the Christian iEra; at a 
 time when the church was rising in worldly favour; after bishops 
 had begun to assume great things to themselves; and when the ef- 
 fort was made to find evidence to support these claims. It is easy^ 
 for us to form a judgment of the reliance to be placed on reports of 
 this kind by adverting to the circumstances of our own country. It 
 is but little more than two hundred years since the first permanent 
 European settlements were made in North America. Now suppose 
 that a historian of the present day, should, among a number of events 
 which he is enabled to authenticate by proper historical evidences 
 mention some of the traditions which are in circulation in the 
 
 * The words used in the Epistle to the Ephesians which goes under the 
 name of Ignatius are the following. "I?^a £V X^/ipO) E^EClGiV EVpi^Ca 
 
 TQv ;^pi(T7(ava)^', 61 xai toig d7toGl6?uoi<; navloJe cvvYiaavy kv 
 Svvdfjsi Iriaov XptcrJa, nav?La, Vzs dwyj, Tifw^ici la nialoWa. 
 
 I wish that I may be found in the lot of the Ephesian Christians.who always 
 conversed with the Apostles of Jesus Christ, Paul, John and the most faith' 
 ful Timothy." If this proves any thing more than that Timothy was a re\U 
 gious teacher amoiig the Ephesians, it proves that he was an Apostle. But 
 who pretends this ? It ought to be stated that this Testimony is taken from 
 the larger Epistles of Ignatius, which almost universally, by learned Episco= 
 palians, are acknowledged to have been interpolated, and very greatly cor- 
 rupted. And by comparing the larger and smaller Epistles, it will be found 
 that this passage is forged. Bishop R. is welcome to all the evidence here 
 afforded for his hypothesis. 
 
 I The passage from Eusebius is in these words, TlflO^SOg ys ^nv Ivi^ 
 
 £V E4>£cro Ttapoixiag hlopulai npoylog Iviv sniciK07t}\v ki?iYij(evau 
 
 Timothy is nEPORTED to have received first the oversight of the parish^ 
 (church) in Ephesus, Lib. iii. chap. 4. Now Eusebius died in the year 340j, 
 that is nearly tiiree hundred years after the event of which he records the 
 tradition. And this is the first mention made of the Episcopate of Timothy 
 in any of the genuine writings of the fathers. It is true that the apostolical 
 constitutions are referred to by episcopal writers ; but they are known not 
 to be genuine ; and the date of their composition is entirely uncertain. The 
 other authorities referred to are still more remote. Chrysostom died in the 
 beginning of the 5th century. The council of Chalcedon was held in the 
 Tiiddle of that century, and Theodoret died ten years afterwards. Photius 
 Inishedhis course in 891, and the author quoted by him is not named, so 
 that nobody knows who he was or when he lived. 
 
 These are the authorities relied on by the prelatists in support of the epis- 
 copal character of Timothy. The i-eader can see at once the probability 
 that they all originated from the tradition of Eusebius. Can such tradition 
 weigh a feather against the plain account of scripture ? 
 
8(> Review of Bishop Ravenscrojt's Vindication and Dejence. 
 
 country respecting events which happened during the first forty or 
 fifty years after our forefathers came to this land; and suppose far- 
 ther, that these traditional stories should twenty centuries hence be- 
 come a matter of controversy, who would risk his estate on the tes- 
 timony of that historian who thus reported the floating traditions of 
 his country? What would be thought of the legislator who would 
 make these traditions the foundation of a law respecting titles? 
 This is a just statement of the value of ecclesiastical traditions. — 
 Nay they ought to be received with an additional abatement: be- 
 cause before the time when they were committed to writing, the 
 spirit of ecclesiastical ambition had been wakened up among the fa-> 
 thers. Blost of them wished^ to exalt the dignity and increase the 
 the power of the diocesan bishops, and therefore were ready to re- 
 cord every tradition which served this purpose. 
 
 It deserves to be remarked, too, that Episcopalian writers can be 
 brought to no agreement as to the real character of Timothy's au- 
 thority. Eusebius only makes him bishop of the parish in Ephesus. 
 But Chrysostom would have us believe that he was archbishop of 
 Asia Minor. Theodoret is of the same opinion. Hammond and 
 others among the moderns fight on the same side. But others again 
 vehemently oppose this notion, and make Timothy no more than a 
 diocesan bishop. Let the prelatists agree among themselves what 
 office Timothy sustained, before they assault us in the unmerciful 
 way of the bishop of North Carolina. 
 
 If we may turn once more to scripture, we shall see how much 
 it differs from the prelatists of all ages. It is held b} Episcopalians 
 that Epaphroditus was bishop of Philippi; and we have seen the 
 remark made with peculiar complacency, that Paul calls him the 
 Apostle of the Philippians; (see chap, ii, 25, in which it is said that 
 djtOCfJoTLOV ought not to be rendered messenger as it is in our trans- 
 lation, but apostle,) and this for the sake of showing that sometimes 
 a bishop is called an Apostle. Here now is a remarkable instance 
 of Paul's disregard of what bishop K. calls clerical propriety. In 
 answer to our inquiry, where was the bishop of Rome, of Corinth, 
 &c. when the Apostle wrote his letters to them, he admits that these 
 churches had no bishops at that period; otherwise Paul would not 
 by any means have addressed the churches at large. He would 
 have sent his letter to the bishop! — But here is a letter addressed to 
 the church of Philippi, and its officers, and sent by the hands of 
 their bishop. All the instructions and charges are given to tjie 
 church at large, and not a word said about the authority of their dio- 
 cesan! Really if bishop R. had lived in the times of the Apostle, 
 we fear that Paul would have fared about as bad as our Reviewer 
 has done ! (See page 73.) 
 
 But we have not stated the worst of the case. The letter to 
 the Philippians was written while Paul was prisoner at Rome ; at 
 least four years ftfter bishop R. supposes that Timotliy was ordain- 
 ed (not to say consecrated) bishop of Ephesus. Well ; the Apostle 
 not only commits the flagrant breach of clerical decorum just ad- 
 verted to : but he promises to send the bishop of Ephesus (as soon 
 as he well cau;) to the diocese of the bishop of Philippi. th^t he 
 
lleview of Bishop llavenscrojt^s Vindication and Defence, 8f 
 
 might know their affairs ! What does the bishop of North Carolina 
 think of this ? How will he reconcile it with clerical propriety ? 
 We fear that it will gravel him almost as sorely, as some of the 
 doctrinal passages in the Epistle to the Romans. But is it at all to 
 be believed that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus ? 
 
 The question then is, what office did he sustain ? We reply 
 that he was an Evangelist. But hear what bishop R. says on this 
 subject. 
 
 "Equally unwarranted by scripture and ecclesiastical history is the usual 
 subterfuge resorted to by contenders for parity in tlie christian ministry} 
 against the episcopal character of Timothy and Titus. They were EvangC' 
 lists it is said, and not Bishops — and as Evangelists only, were cloathed with 
 a special power to ordain and govern in the church." 
 
 "This, sir, also, is mere assertion — and you are required to show, either 
 from scripture or the records of antiquity, that there was a distinct order 
 of ministers in the church styled Evangelists; and as such possessed of au» 
 Ihority distinct from, and superior to, the order either of Deacons or Pres» 
 byters — unless you can do this, you must be aware sir, that the reasoning 
 founded on this assertion, and the conclusions drawn from it, are equally 
 gratuitous with the assertion itself; and very wonderful indeed it would be, 
 that an office, which from the very nature of things, must run parallel with 
 the gospel, so long as there was a heathen land into which to carry its 
 joyful sound, should have been discontinued in the church. But as the 
 •work of an Evangelist cannot cease, so long as the glad tiding* of the gos- 
 pel of Christ are unheard by any nation, kindred, tongue or people, so 
 neither can the office. Every Deacon, Presbyter or Bishop, proclaiming 
 these glad tidings to such, is thereby, and not in virtue of any official design 
 nation, an Evangelist, in the proper scriptural and only just meaning of that 
 ■word. Nor was any other notion ever annexed to the word — until it was 
 found convenient, by the contenders for parity, to consider an Evangelist as 
 a distinct office in the church, in order to evade the clear and direct prece- 
 dent for parity, given in the case of Timothy and Titus." — pp. 42, 43. 
 
 One who did not know this writer would suppose from his bold 
 and peremptory assertions, that all christian antiquity is as familiar 
 to him as his prayer book. But let us see what reason there is for 
 his confidence. Rarely indeed does he afford us the evidence on 
 which he relies — And he must excuse us, and all who think with 
 us, for not believing matters of history on his assertion. But let 
 us inquire for the proof: and, 
 
 1. As to scripture, Eph. iv, 11. "And he (Christ) gave some 
 Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some 
 pastors and teachers." Did bishop R. recollect this passage of 
 scripture ; or was this part written by some lay assistant not very 
 familiar with his Bible ? Were not Apostles officers ? Were not 
 prophets, were not pastors and teachers ? And is it according to 
 the usage of any respectable writer to place between words of dis- 
 tinct and appropriated meaning, in this way, a general and indefinite 
 term which comprehends all of every kind ? Bishop R. seems to 
 have great horror at our innocent word Hermeneutics ; but we can- 
 not help recommending it to him to pay some attention to the thing. 
 The term Evangelist occurs in two other places, 2 Tim. iv, 6, and 
 Acts xxi, 8. In the first of these, Timothy is expressly called an 
 Evangelist. And in the second the same tide was given to Philip, 
 Tvho had once been one of the seven deacons of the Church in 
 wTeru?alem. So much for the use of the word in scripture. 
 
88 Beview of Bishop Ravemeroft*s Vindication and Defence, 
 
 2. Let us look to Ecclesiastical Antiquity. Bishop R. will then 
 please to take up his Eusebius and turn to the third book, and 
 thirty-seventh chapter (pa. 133 Edition of Reading.) He will there 
 find an account of Evangelists, to this effect. "Many of the disci- 
 ples of that age with a vehement love of divine philosophy which 
 the word of God had excited, fulfilled the Saviour's command by dis- 
 tributing their substance to the poor. Then leaving their own 
 country and going abroad, they performed the work of Evangelists, 
 (spyov inelsT^XiVV em.'y'ye7j.olGiv)he'\ng eagerly desirous to preach 
 Christ to those who had never heard the doctrine of faith, and to 
 deliver to them the sacred scriptures. And after they had laid the 
 foundation of the true religion in foreign parts, and appointed 
 others as pastors, they committed the new converts to their care, 
 and went on to other regions, &c. In this testimony, both Theophy- 
 lact and Theodoret concur in their commentaries on Eph. iv, 11. 
 So that we are fully warranted in asserting that Evangelists were 
 extraordinary teachers set over no particular churches, but em- 
 ployed as assistants of the Apostles, and sent from one place to 
 another, for the purpose of organizing churches ; or strengthening 
 them in their faith : or as Theodoret says, EXSivoi Tupiiovleg 
 SXYipVTtOV : they went about and preached. What are we now to 
 think of bishop R's bold assertions about scripture and antiquity? 
 Is it unkind in us to advise him to read more, before he writes on 
 these subjects ? 
 
 The case of Titus is so similar to that of Timothy that we cannot 
 think it necessary to dwell long on it. It is universally understood 
 that "a Bishop has a certain district under his government called a 
 diocese, beyond the limits of which he has no authority at all." 
 Now our author maintains that Titus was bishop of Crete. But let 
 US look at the New Testament. We there find that Titus was sent 
 by the Apostle to Corinth, when things were in great disorder 
 there, as is evident from Paul's epistle to that church. [See 1 
 Cor. i, 12. iv, V, vi, xi, xv, xvi, for an account of their divisions, 
 their false teachers, their immoralities, their neglect of discipline, 
 their going to law before the heathen, their abuse of the Lord's 
 supper, and of their miraculous gifts, their errors about the resur- 
 rection, &c.] Here it would seecn was work for a Bishop. And 
 if we are to be guided by things instead of names, must we not say 
 that Titus was bishop of Corinth? Timothy indeed was also sent 
 to that place, but his abode was short ; whereas Titus tarried a 
 considerable time ; and then went to Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii, 
 13. vii, 6, G.) He brought a good account of the Corinthian Church, 
 and was then sent back (2 Cor. viii, 6 — See also xii, 18.) After 
 this we find him at Rome ; and from thence he is sent to Dalmatia. 
 2 Tim. iv, 10. Either before or after this, he is in Crete. But he 
 does not stay there — He is required to be at Nicopolis ; and what 
 became of him afterwards the New Testament does not mention. 
 His Episcopate in Crete is not mentioned until after the year three 
 hundred. But then, as in Timothy's case, it is not settled whether 
 he was in truth bishop or archbishop. Eusebius, Ambrose and 
 Others are for the former ; Chrvsostom, Theodoret and their foU 
 
Hemexo of Bishop Ra'oenscrqft*s Vindication and Defence, 89 
 
 Towers favour the latter ; Chrysostom expressly says that the whole 
 island was committed to bim, that he might exercise power and ju^ 
 risdiction over so many bishops. Every school-boy knows that 
 Crete was very populous ; that it was famous for its hundred cities; 
 that the people were licentious and dishonest even to a proverb. 
 Of course bishop Titus would have quite enough to do governing 
 so many clergy, and so corrupt a people. What was exactly the 
 ecclesiastical ranii of Titus we leave to be settled by those who are 
 better versed in these matters than we are. But really for the 
 credit of these two eminent ministers of the gospel, Timothy and 
 Titus, we do hope that their episcopacy will be given up. Who 
 can believe that the spiritual government of the Dioceses of Ephesus 
 and Crete was particuhirly committed to them, and that they yet 
 went about the world, minding every body's business but their 
 own ? 
 
 This whole case is plainly this — The planting of a Church of 
 Christ was an extraordinary work. Men of extraordinary qualifi- 
 cations were employed in it. But as the work was too great for 
 the Apostles, they were authorized to select assistants of extraordi- 
 nary gifts and attainments, whom they sent from one place to 
 another, v.'ith full powers to complete what they themselves left 
 unfinished. And, most naturally, the Apostles wrote to them ac- 
 cording to their real character, endowments, and duties. The 
 error of bishop R. consists in supposing that officers of the church 
 raised up for an extraordinary occasion, and endowed with higher 
 gifts than usual, were intended to be perpetual : that is that men 
 who were designed to guide and regulate the churches, until the 
 canon of scripture should be complete, and all christians allowed 
 access to the writings of the Apostles, were intended to be conti- 
 nued, when such provisions were unnecessary. 
 
 Bishop R. seems to place some reliance on the subscriptions to 
 the Epistles to Timothy and Titus ; for he thus expresses him- 
 self. 
 
 "Neither are the subscriptions to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, any 
 more «'forgeries," as you venture to pronounce them, than the headings of 
 the chapters in the Bible, or than the divisions of the Bible into chapters 
 and verses. They are not Scripture, nor considered as such, but as declar- 
 ations of matters ot fact, sufficiently attested by other evidence, to render 
 it both safe and useful, to give the information to the readers of Scripture. 
 Eusebius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Hilary the Deacon, as 
 quoted by Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. vol, I. Book 2d, chap. 1st, page 20, folio 
 edition, all declare, that Timothy was ordained Bishop of Ephesus by St, 
 Paul — most of the same autliors agree in tlie same declarations as to Titus, 
 that he was ordained Bishop of Crete by St. Paul also. Therefore, another 
 assertion of yours that, "at least three hundred years past off before any 
 thing was heard of the Episcopate of Timothy and Titus," is not the truth, 
 these writers being witnt-sst- s with the scriptures. — Nor yet is it true that 
 "there is nothing but uiicerlain trudition to support tliis notion" — both 
 which rash and unfoundeil assertions, yon make at p. 647. The tradition 
 for "this notion, ' as you call it, being evidence just ascertain as that, on 
 which all christians rely for the autlienticity of the canon of Scripture, and 
 for the fact, that it is a revelation from God!"— p. 72. 
 
 Surely no writer ever was so reckless as our Diocesan. Either 
 he supposes that his readers are totally ignorant ; or he himself has 
 
90 Review of Bishop Ilavensci'ojt-s Vindication and Dejence. 
 
 never spent time in making himself acquainted with the Fathere. 
 whose writings he thus refers to ; or with the former history of the 
 church, concerning which he makes such bold assertions. As to 
 the subscriptions to the Epistles, the Bishop says that they are not 
 forgeries, nor yet are they scripture. How then came they in the 
 New Testament ? How is it that they are printed, as sometimes 
 they are, in a way entirely to mislead the common reader ? To say 
 that they are to be considered in the same light as the headings of 
 the chapters, or division of the Bible into chapters and verses, is 
 egregious trifling. But they are "declarations of matters of fact 
 sufficiently attested by other evidence, to make it both safe and 
 useful to give the information to the readers of Scripture." — Well 
 let us examine this matter a little. And we hope that while the 
 bishop is reading this part of our Review he will keep his critical 
 edition of the Greek Testament open before him, his Mill, or his 
 Wetstein, or his Griesback, Doing this, he will perceive, at once, 
 that the manuscripts vary so much as to render it impossible for 
 him to determine what the matters of fact here attested are : and it 
 is an odd sort of testimony that leaves us at a loss to know even what 
 are the facts of the case. 
 
 In the next place, it cannot but occur to one who is able to make 
 such strong assertions respecting antiquity, that the inscription at 
 the end of the first epistle was placed there more than 250 years 
 after the death of Paul; because the term pacatiana was not in use 
 until the reign of Constantine the Great. We will not dispute 
 about the word forgery. But when an unknown transcriber dates 
 a letter at a place, near three hundred years after it was written, 
 what is the worth of his testimony? 
 
 The inscription affixed to the second epistle is wanting in all the 
 most ancient and valuable manuscripts of the New Testament. 
 And in those of a later date, the variations are very considerable. 
 It is therefore spurious; it bears on the face of it the character of 
 later times. And we must be pardoned for telling the bishop that 
 this appeal to these inscriptions will excite the surprise of all who 
 have made Biblical Criticism a subject of study. Many too will 
 laugh at a bishop, who, in this age, gravely refers to evidence of 
 this sort to support his high pretensions. We are really sorry for 
 this — but how can we help it, if the bishop will expose himself? 
 
 But there is something more surprising than this — The bishop 
 says, " Eusebius, Chrysostom. Epiphanius, Jerome, and Hilary 
 the deacon all declare that Timothy was ordained bishop of Ephe- 
 sus by St. Paul, &.c. — Therefore another assertion of )ours, that 
 " at least three nundrf^d years past off before any thinii was heard 
 of the episcopate of Timothy and Titus," is not the truth, these 
 writers being witnesses with the scriptures." ! ! ! ! 
 
 We have shown that there is no evidence for this in the scrip- 
 tures; except these /amo!(s inscriptions, which are not scripture; 
 but have been foisted in to support prelatical pretensions; and 
 which are retained vvlien every man, who knows the least thing 
 about these matters knows that they are spurious. And as for the 
 list of witnesses given above, we have nothing to say more than 
 adduce the following fact-?-, 
 
Hmew &f Bishop RamiscrojVs Vindication and Defence. 9i 
 
 Eusebius tlied Anno Domini, 340. Chrysostoro, 407. Epipha- 
 nius, 402. Jerome, 420. Hilary the Deacon wrote about 3843 
 when he died is uncertain. 
 
 Will the bishop be so good as to explain to us how these old 
 Fathers could have testified to the facts whkh he wishes to make 
 4hem prove, before they were born? Do let us hear how they 
 bear witness that our assertion is not true. We say nothing of the 
 clerical propriety of the bishop's terms. We only wish to know 
 iiow witnesses who lived in the 4th century can disprove the truth 
 of our assertion. 
 
 We have now shown that 
 
 1. Deacons were not ministers of the word. 
 
 2. That the Apostles were not of a difll^rent order from Presbj'- 
 ters; er if they were, that they were extraordinary officers, who 
 as such had no successors. 
 
 3. That Timothy and Titus were not diocesan bishops but evan- 
 gelists; not of a different order from presbyters, but employed 
 also as extraordinary officers for the particular occasion. 
 
 And from all this it would seem to follow that according to our 
 Reviewer, the permanent teachers in the church were those who, 
 according to bishop R's own confession, were styled indifferently 
 elders or bishops. But we have still more to say on this subject. 
 
 Our reviewer had said " The whole language of the New Tes^ 
 fament is such, as to have extorted from many learned Episcopa- 
 lians the confession, that bishops and presbyters were the same." 
 
 Tp this the bishop thought it consistent with clerical proprietj'^s 
 to reply in the following terms. 
 
 « Sir, I am sorry that any man having a character to lose, whether for 
 christian candour or literary fairness, should so commit himself. For what 
 is this but the threadbare, exploded argument, from the Community of 
 Names, which no Episcopalian pretends to dispute. But you cannot bring 
 forward a solitary learned Episcopalian, by whom the confession ever was 
 made, that Bishop and Presbyter were the same order in the ministry. Far 
 less can you estabhsh your assertion either from scripture or antiquity. 
 
 "Were you conversant with the writings of Mr Charles Leslie, I think, 
 that even the necessity of your case, could hardly have driven you to so 
 weak a 'defence of your cause, as you have here resorted to. And as the 
 objection is old and unadorned with any thing new or even ingenious in its 
 support, I shall reply to it in his words, as I find them in the discourse be= 
 fore mentioned, 
 
 " ' If the Presbyterians will say (because they have nothing left to say) 
 that all London (for example) was but one Parisli — and that the Presbyter 
 of every other Parish, was as mueh a Bishop as the Bishop of London, bC' 
 cause the words Bishop and Presbyter are sometimes used in the same senses 
 they may as well prove that Christ was but a Deacon, because he is so called; 
 Rom. XV, 8. And Bishop signifies an overseer, and Presbyter an ancient 
 man or elder man — whence our term of Alderman. And this is as good a 
 foundation to prove that the Apostles were Aldermen, in the City accepta= 
 iion of the word ; or that our Aldermen are all Bishops and Apostles, as to 
 prove that Presbyters and Bishops are all one; from the childish jingle of 
 the words. 
 
 « 'It would be the same thing if one should undertake to confront all an» 
 tiquity, and prove against all the histories, that the Emperors of Rome were 
 no more than the Generals of Armies, and that every Roman General was 
 Emperor of Rome, because he could find the word Irnperator, sometimss 
 applied to the general of an armv, 
 
 1<> 
 
92 Heview of Bishop Ravenscrqffs Vindication and Defence, 
 
 « ' Or, as if a commonwealth's man shouUl get up and say— that ou? 
 former Kings, were no more than our Dukes are now, because the stile of 
 Grace, which is now given to Dukes, was then given to Kmgs. 
 
 *' ' And suppose that any one was put under the penance of answering 
 such ridiculous arguments, what method would be taken, but to show that 
 the Emperors of Rome, and former Kings of England had Generals of ar- 
 mies, and Dukes under them, and exercised authority over them ? 
 
 *' ' Therefore, when we find it given in charge to Timothy, the first 
 Bishop of Ephesus — how he was to proceed against his Presbyters when 
 they transgressed — to sit in judgment upon them, examine witnesses 
 against them, and pass censures upon them, it is a most impertinent logo- 
 machy to argue from the etymology of the words, that notwithstanding all 
 this— a Bishop and a Presbyter are th? same thing. Therefore, that one 
 text 1 Tim. v, 19, is sufficient to silence the pitiful clamour of the Presby- 
 terians. Our English translation reads it "against an Elder" — which is the 
 literal translation of the word Presbyter—" against a Presbyter receive not 
 an accusation, but before two or three witnesses, and them that sin, rebuke 
 before all, that others also may fear." Now upon the Presbyterian hypo- 
 thesis we must say, that Timothy had no authority or jurisdiction over that 
 presbyter, against whom he had power to receive accusations, examine 
 witnesses and pass censures upon him ; and that such a Presbyter had the 
 same authority over Timothy ; which is so extravagant, and against common 
 sense, that I will not stay longer to confute it ; and this is enough to have 
 said concerning the Presbyterian argument from the etymology of the word 
 Presbyter and Bishop."- pp. 66, 67. 
 
 It is surprising, that whenever a high churchman meets with the 
 argument for ministerial equality derived from the community of 
 names, it invariably appears to put him into a passion. But why 
 should that which is perfectly insignificant produce such excite' 
 ment? Why, too, did it not occur to our prelate, that the character 
 of our Reviewer, whatever it may be, had nothing to do with the 
 force of the argument? The bishop here is at hi? bold assertions 
 again. He says that we " cannot bring forward a solitary learned 
 episcopalian, by whom the confession was ever made, that bishop 
 and presbyter were the same order in the ministry." Why will 
 not this prelate according to the charge of Paul to Timothy " give 
 himself to reading?" There are many, very many things in the 
 •writings of learned episcopalians, which bishop R. knows very well 
 that he never saw: why then will he subject himself by confident 
 affirmation to continual exposure? Did he ever read Sir Peter 
 King's Inquiry into the Constitution of the Primitive Clmrch? He was 
 once Lord Chancellor of England; a man of very extensive learn= 
 ing. He proves beyond a doubt that in the primitive church, a 
 presbyter had the whole power of a bishop; and that the difference 
 between them was that the bishop had a pastoral charge, and the 
 presbyter had not. 
 
 What does bishop R. think of Bingham— was he learned? Well, 
 he says that " the Church of England does by no means damn or 
 cut off from her communion, those who believe bishops and pres- 
 byters to be the same order. Some of our best episcopal divines, 
 and true sons of the Church of England, have said the same, dis- 
 tinguishing between order and jurisdiction, and made use of this 
 doctrine and distinction to justify the ordinations of the Reformed 
 churches, against the Romanists." But it is needless to pursue 
 tilts subject ^irther. L«?t bishop R, borrow from nny pvesbyterian 
 
Heview of Bisliop llavenscroJCs Vtndicatioii and Defence, 93 
 
 neighbour of his, Dr Miller's Letters concerning the Co7istitntio7i and 
 Order of the Christian Ministry, and read from page 24C to 285; 
 and without taking the time to peruse all the works of all learned 
 episcopalians, he will find that he ought not to make assertions so 
 readily as he allovys himself to do. 
 
 As for the argument borrowed from Leslie, we had seen it be- 
 fore we ever heard of bishop R.; and had seen it answered in a 
 manner most perfectly satisfactory. We do request it as a most 
 particular favour of bishop il. that on this subject he would read 
 what is to be found in the Christian's Magazine, vol. 1, pp. 187 — 
 211. This is a Review of Essays on Episcopacy from the pen of 
 the celebrated Dr Mason of New York. Were the bishop convers- 
 ant with the writings of Dr Mason, we do not think, that even the 
 necessity of his case could have driven him to so weak a defence 
 of his cause as he has here resorted to. We feel that we have a 
 right to re-echo the bishop's words. No man who understands the 
 use of language, and considers this subject without prejudice, can 
 sincerely scorn the argument for parity derived from the communi- 
 ty of names. 
 
 We have before remarked, that the names of officers in the 
 Christian church were' general terms, as is the case with many 
 words used to express offices in civil life. In some cases, these 
 words are used in their ordinary sense, while in others they are re- 
 stricted. A remarkable case of this kind occurs in 1 Tim. v, 1 and 
 19. The word Elder in the first verse evidently means an old man; 
 in the 19th it means a particular officer in the church. The con- 
 text enables any one not a mere child to perceive this at once. 
 The rule which has been laid down is this; when a writer's sub- 
 ject is the church in any part of its polity, then we take it for 
 granted that the terms of office are used in their restricted sense: 
 otherwise their general meaning is to be attributed to these words. 
 It is just so in civil cases. Congress, assembly, judge and the like 
 are general terms admitting of various applications. But when we 
 speak of our government, then these terms at once become re- 
 stricted; and any but an ideot can understand their definite appli- 
 cation; and the peculiar powers belonging to the several offices 
 held under the government. Indeed it is impossible to speak in- 
 telligibly in relation to this subject, without giving to words that re- 
 stricted meaning on which we insist- Why does it appear absurd 
 to show that Christ was but a deacon^ if the general term deacon, is 
 not restricted in its application to a particular church officer? For 
 the same reason and for that only it appears absurd to say that 
 apostles are aldermen. We annex a definite idea to the term 
 apostle, we think of a particular officer in the church of Christ: 
 So also in using the word alderman we think of a particular officer 
 in a city corporation; and hence the obvious absurdity. So then, 
 the episcopalians cannot use their favourite arguments to turn us* 
 in this case into ridicule, without admitting the very principle for 
 which we contend. We say that the word bishop, signifying, in 
 its general sense, an overseer, when applied to an officer in the 
 pjimitive church is definite in it? mej^ping; that it does not signify 
 
M 2ici>icxi- <.y Jjta'iLU^) lia iciticroji's Viudicaliou and Dejaint, 
 
 an apostle, nor a deacon, but in the restricted sense of these term;, 
 oue who has the oversight of a particular chiirch. In like mannerj 
 the word presbyter, when used in the same way, has a definite 
 meaning, so that presbyter for instance cannot be commuted for 
 deacon. But while official terms have this restricted signification j 
 it is evident beyond dispute, that bishop and presbyter are used in- 
 discriminately for the same office. The only difference between 
 them being this, that the word presbxjter conveys an idea of the 
 authority with which one esecutes his office*^ and bishop, (sTtLCxO' 
 Ttog) the actual discharge of official duty. 
 
 Or to express our ideas in other terms — when we find in scrip- 
 ture, the terms apostle, bishop, deacon, applied to officers in the 
 church of Christ, it is evident that bishop cannot be used in place 
 of either apostle or deacon: the case is the same with apostle, pres- 
 byter and deacon: but presbyter and bishop may at any time be sub- 
 stituted one for another without in the least degree hurting the 
 sense. This is done twice by the apostle Paul; once in the 20th of 
 Acts, and once in the Epistle to Titus. If then language can con- 
 vey any definite ideas, we are warranted in saying that bishops 
 and presbyters, according to the New Testament, are officers of 
 the same order. 
 
 The additional instances given by Leslie are not fairly stated: no 
 presbyterian ever thought of proving parity after this fashion. If 
 imperator, although for many years it signified the general of ai5 
 army, yet when in the degenerate days of Rome the soldiers elected 
 the chief of the empire, became restricted in its signification, then 
 we might certainly know that imperator meant emperor. And sup- 
 posing that the term Augustus was also used, after the days of Oc- 
 tavius Caesar, to designate the emperor, then it would follow unde- 
 niably that Augustus, and Imperator expressed precisely the same 
 office. But no, say the episcopalians, imperator signifies a general, 
 and it is pitiful trifling to pretend that it means emperor. The 
 reader can easily see on which side the sophistry lies. 
 
 Just so in regard to the instance of king and duke. It is a man- 
 ifest perversion of the case. No commonwealth's man, no pres- 
 byterian ever reasoned in this pitiful way. But thus — formerly the 
 kings of England were distinguished by the style of grace. When 
 therefore a writer speaks of the king, he means the person styleil 
 his grace: and when he uses the term his grace he means the king. 
 His grace, and king then mean the very same office and authority. 
 Is this too ridiculous to be answered? But says Mr Charles Leslie, 
 the term grace is now applied to dukes, and therefore a duke and a 
 king cannot be the same. A very sapient conclusion indeed! Bishop 
 and presbyter once were applied indifferently to the same church of- 
 ficer; but since that time, the meaning of the words is changed; 
 'bishop now signifies an officer of the highest order, and presbyter 
 one in the next rank; therefore, before this change took place, they 
 meant officers of different order: that is, when they were used 
 indiscriminately for the same officer, they meant officers entirely dif- 
 ferent. This is the sort of reasoning in which bishop R. perfectly 
 coincides. We can only say that he manifests wonderful facility 
 towards his own party. 
 
jfieview of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication ant Vefence. 93 
 
 As for all the rest about Timothy, we have sufficiently answered 
 it already. 
 
 But now we come to his ten instances from the scripture of dio- 
 cesan episcopacy. 
 
 These are the cases of Timothy and Titus — two. 
 
 Of the angels of the churches in Revelations — seven. 
 
 Of the episcopacy of James in Jerusalem — one. 
 
 In all ten! 
 
 We hope that our readers, by this time, know well enough what 
 to think of the first two. 
 
 ki regard to the angels of the seven churches, the bishop writes 
 thus, 
 
 " In the lifetime of John, the beloved disciple, we have further proof of 
 Diocesan Episcopacy, in the seven churches of Asia, to whose respective 
 Angels, or chief Governors, were addressed, through St. John, the admo=> 
 nitions of the great Head of the Church, I enter not into the unprofitable 
 and childish jangle, raised on the word Angel, in order to support the 
 Presbyterian hypothesis. Sufficient it is for me, that the Church of Ephe* 
 sus is in the nuniber of the seven thus admonished ; in which, we have aU 
 ready seen from Scripture, that a Diocesan Bishop was appointed ; and 
 have good reason to believe, that the succession from Timothy was acted 
 upon before the Apocalyptic vision ; because upwards of thirty years 
 elapsed, from the appointment of Timothy to the government of the Ephe° 
 sian Church, to the giving the Revelation to St. John ; and we well know, 
 that the primitive Bishops, or Angels of the Churches, had but a short space 
 given them by the persecuting powers. 
 
 " If then, the Bishop or chief governor of the Ephesian Church, is ad- 
 dressed in a revelation from Heaven, as the Angel of that Church, and ig 
 commended for the just exercise of his episcopal authority, in trying theui 
 which said they were Apostles, but were not. Rev. li, 2, the same official 
 character and station must be assigned to the Angels of the other sis 
 Churches — We have therefore at once, and from Scripture too, six addi- 
 tional testimonies against your " indisputable fact." 
 
 " If to this we add the testimony which Ecclesiastical antiquity gives in 
 support of the diocesan character of these Angels, it is not easy to under- 
 stand upon what principle it can be resisted. For we have extant, the Epis- 
 tles of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, ordained by the Apostles, to three of 
 these Apocalyptic Churches, the Ephesian, the Philadelphian and the Smyr- 
 nean, in all of which he recognises the three orders of the Bishop, the 
 Presbytery and the Deacons — particularly in that to the Ephesians, he 
 speaks of Onesimus their Bishop, who of course must have been such subse- 
 quent to Timothy. And in that to the Smyrneans, of Polycarp their Bishop, 
 who was also apostolically ordained to his office of Angel or Bishop. To this 
 we can add tlie testimony of many witnesses, particulnrly of St. Augustine 
 and Epiphanius, that by the Angels of the Apocalyptic »:hurches, the chief 
 rulers or Bishops of those Churches were always understood. 
 
 ♦' Another testimony to this point, less objectionable perhaps in your eyes 
 than the early historians of the Church, is found in the more modern ec- 
 clesiastical historian Mosheim ; in his commentaries on the three first cen- 
 turies, Vidal's translation, p. 227, -'28, note — he thus expresses himself^ 
 ' In support of this opinion, (that Episcopacy was established during the 
 lifetime of the Apostles and with their approbation) we are supplied with 
 an argument of such strength, in those • Angels' to whom St. John addressed 
 the Epistles, which, by the command of our Saviour himself, he sent to the 
 seven churches of Asia — as tiie Presbyterians, as they are termed, let them 
 labour and strive what they may, will never be able to overcome. It must 
 be evident to every one, even on a cursory perusal of the Epistles to which 
 we refer, that those who are therein termed • Angels,' were persons pos- 
 sessing such a degree of authority in their respective churches, as enabled 
 
96 Rei'lew of Bishop Il(ivcnscroft*$ Vindication and Defence. 
 
 them to mark with merited disgrace, whatever might appear to be deserv- 
 ing of reprehension, and also to give due countenance and encouragement 
 to every thing that was virtuous and commendable.'" — pp. 70, 71. 
 
 If we admit that the symbolical term angel is to be restricted to a 
 single person, there is nothing in the phraseology, which may not 
 be applied to a parochial as well as to a diocesan bishop. Should 
 we choose to adopt the language of the apocalypse, and address 
 letters to the angel of the church in Raleigh, in Fayetteville, in 
 Hillsborough, our communications would be just as appropriate to 
 Presbyterian clergymen in those places, as to the episcopalians. 
 But bishop R., with all his prelatical friends to help him, can never 
 prove that the term angel as a symbol is restricted to the clergy. 
 A single term when used symbolically, most commonly, if not uni- 
 versally, expresses a collective body. Now, as there is not a single 
 instance in all the preceding parts of the New Testament of an 
 epistle directed to the bishop of a church; but all are addressed to 
 the churches collectively, as for instance to the Romans, Corinth- 
 ians, Galatians, &c.; we shall believe until better evidence than has 
 ever yet been adduced, shall be set before us, that the apostle did 
 not depart from the common practice. 
 
 It would be amusing, if we had time for it, to show how the high 
 going churchmen differ in their explications of this passage. They 
 deal much, very much in what bishop R. (who certainly did not 
 know all that learned episcopalians have written on this subject,) 
 calls "unprofitable and childish jangle:" — in "the sophistry of 
 names." Has bishop R. read Potter on Church Government? He 
 will ^n^jaiigle enough there, on the word angel. But he relies on 
 the fact that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus. This is what a 
 great man used to call -a false fact: and therefore his argument falls 
 to the ground. Timothy's episcopacy is to the bishop what " the 
 great goddess Diana" was to the Ephesians. It is about as good, 
 too, for proof, as Diana was for a divinity. But really there is 
 something original in the argument which follows. 'A diocesan 
 bishop had been appointed — namely Timothy — and upwards of 
 thirty years had elapsed before John wrote by direction, the epistle 
 to the church at Ephesus,' therefore "the succession from Timothy 
 was acted upon;" and the angel of the church was a diocesan 
 bishop. lif our author expects to convince any but prejudiced par- 
 tizans, by such arguments, he certainly has tlie poorest way of 
 complimenting their understandings that we ever heard of Let 
 bishop R. either prove that angel can mean nothing but a diocesan 
 bishop — which he never can do: — or let him give up the authority 
 derived from a symbolical word altogether. 
 
 But here we have a most notable instance of the "art of sinking" 
 in argument. We were promised ten undeniable instances from 
 scripture of the establishment of diocesan episcopacy by the Apos- 
 tles. We accordingly were looking with all our eyes for scrip- 
 ture evidence ; when behold we have the testimony of Ignatius, 
 Epiphanius, and Augustine. Surely undeniable evidence from 
 scripture needs no such support as this. As for Ignatius, every 
 one ought to know that there is a dispute yet unsettled respecting 
 the genuinenesij of bis epistle? We shall not enter on this subject. 
 
E^view of Bishop Ravenscrqfi^s Vindication and Defence* 9f 
 
 however, at present. A witness whose credibility is not admitted^ 
 makes but a sorry figure in support of undeniable scriptural facta. 
 But we are prepared to show at the proper time, that, waiving this 
 objection, Ignatius does not sustain diocesan episcopacy. As for 
 Epiphanius and Augustine, they can depose to what the Apostles 
 did, just about as well as bishop R. can give testimony as to the 
 matters in dispute, in the days of Charles the 1st of England, be- 
 tween the advocates of the star chamber, and high commission^ and 
 the friends of civil and religious liberty. 
 
 But, as young rhetoricians are pleased to say, the bishop "caps 
 the climax," when he brings forward the testimony of Mosheiin as 
 translated by Fidal, to prove what the Apostles established in the 
 church — a witness who lived more than seventeen hundred years 
 after the event to which he testifies ! Mosheim was a very learned 
 man, and his opinion is entitled to respect. He, however, was 
 not free from prejudices, as any one may see who reads his Eccle- 
 siastical History. His opinions then will be carefully examined by 
 every one, who wishes not to be mislead. But all this, is nothing 
 to the point before us. We are promised evidence from the scrip- 
 ture, and are gravely told of Ignatius, and Epiphanius, of Augustine 
 and Mosheim ! 
 
 The author gives us his tenth instance from the New Testament 
 JQ the following words. 
 
 ^'Another and decisive proof from Scripture in favour of Diocesan Epis» 
 copacy, is furnished in the constitution and government of the first Christian 
 Church that ever was gathered in the world, the Church in Jerusalem. 
 The converts to the faith in that City, are counted by thousands in the New 
 Testament, so that it was impossible they could all assemble in one place, 
 and must, for convenience, if not for safety, have had different places of 
 worship. Over these separate congregations, with their respective Presby- 
 ters and Deacons, a near kinsman of our blessed Lord presided, as ia 
 evident from the manner he is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 "That James, the Lord's brother, as he is called in Scripture, was truly 
 the Bishop or chief governor of the Church in Jerusalem, and ordained 
 thereto by the Apostles themselves, is attested by all antiquity. By Hege- 
 sippus and Clemens Alexandrinus in the second, and by Chrysostom, and 
 your favourite Jerome, in the fourth century. To this I will add the testi- 
 mony of the same Mosheim before mentioned, extracted from the same work, 
 p, 229, 230, note — "As the early churches are well known to have taken all 
 their institutions aiid regulations from the model exhibited to them in the 
 Church of Jerusalem it appears to me, that scarcely a doubt can be enter- 
 tained of their having been also indebted to this last mentioned venerable 
 assembly, for the example of appointing some one man to preside over the 
 Presbyters, and general interest of each individual Church, and that the first 
 instance of any one's being invested with the Episcopal office occurred in 
 that city."— pp. 71, 72. 
 
 Our readers cannot fail to observe that this last ''decisive proof 
 from scripture," is patched up by the testimony of men who lived 
 from a hundred to seventeen hundred years and more after the 
 time. We have wondered much-whether bishop R. ever took pains 
 to become acquainted with the character of his authorities. Where, 
 for instance, has he seen the testimony of Hegesippus ? Does the 
 bishop know that there are only five very small fragments of the 
 work of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius, and that even these 
 remnants arc sufficient to destroy hi;; authority. Let bishop R-, turn 
 
98 Review of Bishop Ra-censcroft's Vindication and Dejence* 
 
 to his Eusebius Lib. 2, c, 23, and he will find a long, fabulous 
 account of the martyrdom of James : and if he will trouble himself 
 so far as to consult the learned Dupin's Bibliotheca Patrum, he will 
 find that even candid Roman Catholics admit that such is the char- 
 acter of Hegesippus. But the testimony of the/a</iers will be con- 
 sidered in a subsequent part of our work. At present we are only 
 concerned with the scriptures. Our author contents himself with 
 the bare assertion that James, the brother of our Lord, presided over 
 the several congregations in Jerusalem "as is evident from the 
 manner he is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles." Our reader's 
 who are acquainted with Mosheim, may well be surprised that 
 bishop R. who quotes him for authority, took no notice of his proof 
 that James could not have been bishop of Jerusalem. We have no 
 copy at hand of Vidal's translation ; but we are sure that the pas- 
 sage to which we refer, cannot be very distant from that quoted by 
 bishop R. 
 
 "If this is sound reasoning, James held the chief authority in the 
 church in Jerusalem, therefore he was its bishop ; we must assent 
 to this conclusion also, the twelve Apostles governed the church at 
 Jerusalem, therefore they were all bishops of that church. Why 
 many words ? There is a very great diff'erence between the office of 
 bishop and apostle ; and therefore I think that James, who was an 
 Apostle, did not sustain the office of bishop in Jerusalem. I am of 
 opinion rather that the Presbyters governed the christian people 
 in Jerusalem ; in such a way however as to do nothing of great im- 
 portance without the counsel and authority of James : and as they 
 had before shown themselves obedient to the whole college of the 
 Apostles, so also they did to him. Although therefore we judge 
 that the ancients committed some mistake when they adorned James 
 with the title of first Bishop of Jerusalem, yet it may without 
 difficulty be demonstrated, that the church in Jerusalem, had a 
 bishop sooner than the other churches, and that therefore the epis- 
 copal dignity had its origin in that city."— (Jtfos/icm Com. De Rebus 
 Christ, p. 135.) 
 
 No mail's authority is of any value with us ; but facts and sound 
 arguments have great weight. James \vas an apostle, and therefore 
 was not a bishop in the official sense of that term. The argument 
 derived from the Acts of the Apostles, is stated by bishop R. in 
 terms so general and vague that it calls for no refutation. Other 
 writers on his side have adverted to particulars ; for instance to 
 the council held on occasion of the deputation from Antioch, Acts 
 XV. But a slight examination will convince any one that this is a 
 slender support indeed for a building as high as that of prelacy. The 
 argument is founded on the speech of James, " wherefore my 
 sentence is, &c.;" and this is thought to be a judicial sentence, pro- 
 nounced ex cathedra. But it is no such thing. James, according 
 to the true force of the original, did no more than give his opinion ; 
 as others had done before him. This opinion pleased the other 
 Apostles and Elders, and it was adopted. This is all that can be 
 gathered from Hie words used by James. — But it is wonderful 
 that in this case, it has not occurred to the advocates of prelacy, 
 that the question here to be decided, respected a people >vho wero 
 
Meviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft^s Vindication and Defence. S9 
 
 out of the jurisdiction of bishop James. The case was brought 
 up from Antioch. Was there no bishop in that great city ? Or is 
 it pretended that James was bishop of Antioch ? — There is no end 
 to the mistakes of men, who have formed their opinions respecting 
 the constitution of the primitive church under the influence of high 
 church notions and practices ; and then undertake to judge of the 
 times of the Apostles by their own. The episcopate of James is 
 the mere dream of such men as the fabulosus Hegesippus, the 
 Pseudo-Ignatius, and others who are fond of catching at every fig- 
 ment to support a hierarchy, which has no foundation in scripture. 
 We shall in our next number proceed to show by decisive testi- 
 mony, that in the primitive church presbyters exercised the pow- 
 ers which are supposed to distinguish bishops from them as an ec- 
 clesiastical order. And we intend to hold bishop R. to his word: 
 not rigidly indeed, but as far as it is in the heart of gentle spirited 
 presbyterians to do the thing. " IfJ" says his right reverence, 
 "you can produce from the records of ecclesiastical history, for 
 fifteen centuries, a single instance of presbyterian, as contradistin" 
 guished from Episcopal ordination, in any acknowledged branch of 
 the Catholic Church, I surrender the cause I maintain, and with it, 
 every claim or title to covenanted mercy." It is only the first 
 part of the surrender to which we intend to hold the bishop. As 
 for the rest, worlds would not tempt us if we could, to take from 
 him his title to covenanted mercy, or weaken in the least possible 
 degree his hope of salvation. But we wish to fix the bishop on a 
 foundation much firmer than that on which he relies. He places 
 his confidence on the assurance which man gives; on episcopal 
 authority and succession; on something communicated by a bishop 
 to give validity to the sacraments, and make them seals of God's 
 truth and faithfulness. Now all these fabuloe aniles, these anti- 
 quated notions, we wish bishop R. to surrender, together with his 
 DissentC'phobia, and come and take his seat with us at the table of 
 our common Lord, and rely on the word of God, the scriptures of 
 eternal truth, for his hopes of salvation. Not that we would per- 
 suade bishop R. to become a presbyterian: this we never do: be= 
 sides, we think that the bishop would not submit with very good 
 grace to the discipline of a presbytery,* after he has/e^< episcopal 
 
 * Bishop U. thinks that the exercise of discipline on ministers of the 
 gospel, where all are equal, is absurd and impossible. In page 68, he thus 
 expresses himself: " If then, as is asserted by you, Episcopal power and 
 authority, in the proper acceptation, belonged to these Presbyters of the 
 Ephesian Churcli, in virtue of their office as such—it is most unaccountable, 
 that not the remotest allusion is made to it by St. Paul, at this particular 
 and very proper time. And still more unaccountable, how, if they pos- 
 sessed it, they could have exercised it upon each other. If all had equal 
 right to rule, to judge of doctrine and conduct, to censure and absolve— 
 who were to obey and submit themselves ? The very idea of such a state 
 of things is so absurd as to refute this argument in favour of parity." Are 
 not all members of Congress equal in power and authority ? And cannot 
 they discipline and rule each otlier. Are not all members of a presbytery 
 in a state of perfect official equality ; and if a presbyter teaches false doc« 
 trine, or commits immoral actions, is there no authority that can be exercised 
 on him .? Why could not the presbyters of Ephesus do, what presbyterians 
 can and actually do perform every time the occasion calls for it ? W^ 
 IS 
 
100 Jtetiiexv of Bishop Ravenscroft*s yiudication and Vejtnu. 
 
 power. And we are not without the hope of ensuring bishop R's 
 high commendation and thanks for our most exemplary moderation, 
 when wc shall have compelled him to feel that he must make the 
 unconditional surrender to which he has pledged himself before the 
 world. If we prove, what we are sure that we can do, the bishop 
 is bound to surrender all his claims and hopes of covenanted mercy. 
 Now instead of this, we shall only insist on his surrendering his 
 dislike of Dissenters, his episcopal pride — and acknowledging that 
 he is superior to his presbyters not by the appointment of God, 
 but solely by the custom of the church. Let him do this, and we 
 will freely let him off", for the rest. 
 
 We shall now endeavour to show that bishop R. is bound, ac- 
 cording to his own terms, unconditionally to surrender his cause. 
 Our readers will bear in mind the pledge which he has given. 
 
 But we wish first to make a remark or two, the justness of which 
 will, at first sight, appear to every intelligent mind. 
 
 Bishop R. cannot, no man on earth can show from any record 
 of the Church for two hundred and fifty years any trace whatever, 
 <i^ -A second ordination. Be it remembered that according to bishop 
 R. ordination impresses a character ; and precisely that character 
 which is intended by the ordaining minister. One act of ordination 
 impresses the character of a deacon, and nothing else : a different 
 act impresses the character of a priest ; and a third (called conse- 
 cration) impresses the character of a bishop. Now according to 
 the whole history of the church, for nearly three centuries, there 
 is nothing which even hints at Episcopal consecration. When a 
 man was once ordained to the gospel ministry, nothing that man 
 could do, made him more a minister, or gave him any higher power 
 than he possessed by his induction to office. Episcopal consecra- 
 tion is the device of later ages. If bishop R. denies this, let him 
 from the undisputed records of the early ages produce evidence of 
 the fact. 
 
 2. In all languages, changes take place in the meaning of words. 
 The signification of a term which has undergone a change, is not 
 to be retained after the change has taken place. Thus if the word 
 bishop has a different meaning now, from that which it had in the 
 first three centuries ; the modern meaning ought not to be given to 
 the term, when used by writers of the primitive ages. Otherwise 
 these vvriters will be made to say what they do not mean. This is 
 too plain to admit of illustration or proof. 
 
 We now proceed with our proof of Presbyterial ordination. 
 And in the first place we appeal to Scripture. Timothy was or- 
 
 should have thought that bishop R. knew better, from his esqierience in the 
 christian society of which he was first a member. But however this may 
 be, it is laughable indeed that he should, with the presbyterian church ex- 
 isting before his eyes, gravely produce such an argument as this against 
 Tninisterial parity. One of the old objections against presbyterianism has 
 been founded on the rigor of its discipline.— One of the practical argu- 
 ments against episcopacy, as the dispute has been conducted in England, is 
 derived from the want of discipline ; while one of the boasts of this society, 
 at least in this country, is its liberalift/. We do \yish that bishon R. would 
 TWd Churth History. 
 
Htview c>f liishop Havenscroft's i^indkaiion and Defence. 101 
 
 Gained '* with the laying on of tlie hands of the Presbytery;" 1st 
 Tim. ivr, 14. On this fact we wish to offer a few remarks. 
 
 1. This is the only instance recorded in Scripture, of the specific 
 manner in which 7ninisters of the gospel were ordained in the days 
 of the Apostles. The fact of ordination is several times mentioned; 
 but no other reference is made to the manner in which it is done. 
 
 2. The Greek word (TtpeGSvTepiov) presbytery, according to 
 the uniform usage ofthe ancients, signifies a company of Presbyters; 
 that is of persons who in New Testament language sustained the 
 office of presbyter, 
 
 3. The Greek phrase here employed, signifies as has been ob» 
 served elsewhere the manner in which Timothy's ordination was 
 performed. — o eSo^ coi — fisld im^sasQg TCdv j^eipQv. K.T.A. 
 It would be easy to prove this by the citation of numerous passages 
 from the New Testament, and also from profane authors. Acts ii, 29. 
 eiTtetv (letd TtappyjCi'a^f expresses for instance the manner of 
 Speaking, with boldness. [See also v, 26. xvii, 11. xxiv, 3. 2 Cor. 
 vii, 15. Tit. ii, 15, &c. &c.] If then the language ofthe New Tes- 
 tament can in any case convey a definite meaning, it is certain that, 
 in this instance, the thing done was done by the Presbytery. The 
 pretence that ordination was performed by the Apostle; and that 
 the presbyters present, only laid their hands on Timothy in con- 
 currence with the Apostle, betrays ignorance of the usage of the 
 language, and of the proper force of the words here employed, of 
 which a Biblical critic ought to be ashamed. Here then is a deci- 
 sive instance of ordination by a Presbytery, on which we would be 
 willing to rest our whole cause. 
 
 But to put the matter beyond all controversy, we will undertake 
 to show that there was no ordination performed in the church at all 
 from the days ofthe Apostles until at least 250 years after Christ 
 by any but presbyters. During the first two centuries, the mod- 
 ern distinction between bishops and presbyters was utterly unknown 
 to the church. The exclusive power of ordination claimed by dio- 
 cesan bishops is a usurpation in the church, supported by nothing 
 but decrees of councils, and contrary to the whole practice of the 
 pure primitive age of Christianity. But here we plainly give no- 
 tice, that no reliance can be placed on disputed, and manifestly in- 
 terpolated works, such as Ignatius' Epistles, the Canons and Consti= 
 tutions of the Apostles, &c. We will have nothing to do with wit- 
 nesses, whose credibility has been impeached — -not, as some sup- 
 pose, because they decide the point against us; but because vve 
 cannot bring ourselves to place confidence in Testimony of this 
 character. 
 
 The point which we wish to establish, was stated in terms suffi- 
 ciently explicit by Jerome, the most learned of the fathers, nearly 
 fourteen hundred years ago. In his Commentary on Titus, he 
 boldly maintains that, in the days of the Apostles, presbyter and 
 bishop were the same; and states it as a fact known in his day, that 
 presbyters were inferior to bishops by the custom of the church, and 
 not by the appointment of the Lord. 
 
 "Haec propterea, ut ostenderejnus apud veteres eosdom fuis^e 
 Presbyteros quos et Episcopos. Paulatim vero, ut dissionum plan» 
 
104 Review oj' Bishop Bavcnscrqft^s Vtnilic(itio)i and Defence^ 
 
 taria evellerentur, aJ unum omnen solicUudinem esse delatam.-— 
 Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex ecclesiae consuctudine ei, qui sibi 
 propositus fuerit, esse subjccto?, ita Episcopi noverint se magis con- 
 suetudine quam dispositionis domiiiiciB veritate, Presbyteris esse 
 majores." He also asserts it to be a fact, that at Alexandria, from 
 the days of Mark the Evangelist to the bishops Heraclas and Dyo- 
 nysius, the presbyters always chose one of their number, placed him in 
 a higher station, and named him bishop. But the bishop of North 
 Carolina may see this whole matter more fully considered, in the 
 works of the learned Selden, (vol. ii, 419—527.) who gives a trans- 
 lation of "Eutychius's Origin of the Church at Alexandria." Accord- 
 ing to the account given by this writer, it is clear that there were 
 for about 250 years, no bishops at Alexandria, but such as were 
 ordained by presbyters. 
 
 But this matter is merely adverted to in passing, because Euty- 
 chius substantially agrees with Jerome. This Hither, bishop Ravens- 
 croft is pleased to call our favourite — we suppose because his testi- 
 mony is so decisive in favour of Presbyterianism. But if the bishop 
 will consult as high an Episcopalian as Dr Cave, he ivill find what, 
 from the early part of the 5th century, down to the present day, has 
 been the character of Jerome among the learned. He has been 
 often called, "the teacher of the world," "the most learned of the 
 fathers," &c. &c. — so that we have reason enough for our favour- 
 itism. Let us, however, go back as near to the times of the Apos- 
 tles as possible. The undisputed writings, which have come down 
 to us from this early period, may be mentioned in the following 
 order. 
 
 1. The epistle of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians. Clement 
 ^3 a writer of the first century. He lived with the Apostles. His 
 tirst epistle to the Corinthians, is universally admitted to be genu- 
 ine, and is regarded as one of the most precious relics of ecclesias- 
 tical antiquity. The letter of this apostolical man was occasioned 
 by the grievous contentions which disturbed the peace of the Co- 
 rinthian Church. It was addressed to the whole body of the faith- 
 ful at Corinth. Either, then, there was no bishop at Corinth, 
 or Clement was as negligent of "clerical propriety" as Paul 
 had been before him. But we will let that pass. Bishop R. is 
 obliged to admit that in the days of the Apostles, ministers of 
 the gospel ordained and settled in the churches, were styled indif- 
 ferently, presbyters or bishops. The case was precisely the same 
 in the time of Clement of Rome. For he says (chap xlii. pa. 170. 
 Cotebr. Edit, Le Clerc.) "They (the Apostles) preached in coun- 
 tries and cities, and appointed their first converts, after they had 
 proved them by the spirit, as bishops and deacons of those who 
 would afterwards believe. Nor was this a new device, for from 
 old times it had been written concerning bishops and deacons; for 
 thus saith the scripture, "I will appoint their bishops in righteous- 
 ness, and their deacons in faith." Here, be it remarked, are only 
 two kind of church officers. In chap, xliv, he says "And our Apos- 
 tles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be contention 
 on account of the episcopal office; and for this reason, having receiv- 
 ed perfect foreknowledge, they appointed the aforementioned, and 
 
lleview oj Bishop Uavenscroft' s Vindicaiioii and Defence. 105 
 
 in doing so, they gave the rule of succession, that when they should 
 fall asleep, other approved men might succeed to their ministry.— 
 We do not therefore think it right, that they should be cast out of 
 their office, who were appointed by them, (i. e. the Apostles) or af- 
 terwards by other approved men, with the consent of the whole 
 church; who have ministered to the flock of Christ, blamelessly, 
 %vith humility, and not in a niggardly manner; and who have for a 
 long time; rc-ceived a good report from all men. For our sin will 
 not be smidi, if we eject from the episcopacy those who have per- 
 formed their service in a holy and blameless manner. Happy the 
 presbyiers, who have, before this, finished their course, who have ob- 
 tained a fruitful and perfect disclmrge! For they will never fear 
 that any will cast them out from the place prepared for them." — 
 The attentive reader cannot fail to perceive how exactly these 
 words of an apostolical man, accord with the view which we have 
 given by the orgHnizalion of the primitive church. The Jlpoi'tle — 
 presbyters appointed persons duly qualified as religious teachers, an3 
 ministers of tables, in all the churches. The teachers set over 
 particular churches, were bishops — presbrjters,c-d\led indiscriminately 
 by either name, but most commonly by the latter. They were 
 bishops, because they had the oversight of a particular church; 
 but yet so common was the title o( Presbyter, that it is given to men 
 who were ejected from the episcopal office. Clement, after ad- 
 verting to the fact that the Corinthians had deprived some of their 
 bishops, exclaims happy the presbyters who have finished their 
 course, and who never will fear that any will deprive them. The 
 episcopal office then according to Clement is precisely the office 
 held by a presbyter, when he is set over a particular church. And 
 the rule of succession as laid down by the Apostles is obvious. — 
 These presbyters appoint others, with the approbation of the 
 church. 
 
 In chap, xlvii. pa. 174, this venerable writer says, "Beloved, it 
 is shameful, yea very shameful to be heard, and unworthy of your 
 conversation in Christ, that the most firmly established, and ancient 
 church of the Corinthians should, on account of one or two per= 
 sons, rise up against the Presbyters." — He then adverts to the re- 
 proach thus brought on them, and the name of Christ; exhorts 
 them to take away this reproach; gives a very striking description 
 of christian charity; and breaks out thus — "Who then among you 
 is generous, who is compassionate, who is full of love? Let him 
 say — if sedition and discord, and schisms have arisen on my account, 
 I depart, 1 go away wherever you wish, and do what is required by 
 the people; only let the flock of Christ live in peace, with the 
 Trcsbyters placed over it. ^isla t(dV KO^UJla^SVQV 7tp£Cy/?l>7£pWV." 
 And in the Ivii. chap, he says, "Do ye therefore, who have laid 
 the foundation of this disturbance, be subject to the presbyters, and 
 be disciplined to repentance." pa. 178.. 
 
 Now we ask, does any thing in all that Clement says, bear the 
 least semblance of diocesan episcopacy? And where was the bishop 
 of Corinth when Clement wrote? Not a trace of him is to be found 
 in this letter — not a word of him in the letters of the Apostle Paul. 
 
104 Ueview of Bishop liavenscroft's yindkatio/i and Defence. 
 
 But every thing in full accordance with gemdne Presbyterianism. — 
 Presbyters appoint others to the sacred office, with the consent of 
 the people. It is most generally believed that this epistle of Cle- 
 ment was written about the year of our Lord 9G, after the persecu- 
 tion of Domitian. 
 
 2. The Epistle of Poly carp. This is supposed by Lardner to have 
 been written about the year 108. It is admitted to be genuine, and 
 has received high praise from both ancients and moderns. The 
 writer was a disciple of the Apostle John, and may well be called 
 an apostolical man. This letter, contrary to our bishop's notions of 
 clerical propriety, is addressed to the "Church of God which dwells 
 at Philippi." It is from "Polycarp and the Presbyters with him." 
 In the whole of it, there is not a word about bishops. But there is 
 mention of two officers in the church, presbyters and deacons. "We 
 who know that God is not mocked, ought to walk worthy of his com- 
 mandment, and according to his will; and in like manner, the dea- 
 cons ought to be unblamable in the sight of his holiness." And in 
 the same chapter he says "wherefore it behoves you to abstain from 
 all these, (carnal desires) and be subject to the presbyters arid dea- 
 cons, as unto God and Christ." And in the next chapter it is sub- 
 joined, "Let the presbyters be full of compassion, merciful to all; 
 restoring wanderers, visiting the sick, not negligent of the widow, 
 the orphan, and the poor, but always providing what is good before 
 God and man, abstaining from all anger, respect of persons, and un- 
 just judgments, far from avarice, not ready to believe any thing 
 against any one, not too severe in judgment, as knowing that all are 
 sinners." So the apostolical Polycarp speaks of presbyters, giving 
 not the slightest hint that officers superior to them in the church 
 existed in the church. 
 
 3. Proceeding in the course we have adopted, we next come to 
 the fragment of Papias, preserved by Eusebius. But on this we 
 forbear to oifer any remark, save this only, that vvhere he uses the 
 terms employed to designate officers in the ancient church, he uni- 
 formly speaks of presbyters, and not of bishops. See Eusebius iii, 
 39, or Lardner i, 336, 4to. 
 
 4. In the next place we refer to Justin the martyr. He suffered 
 about the year 160; and is generally supposed to have presented his 
 apology about twenty years before. In describing the order of 
 Christian worship, he mentions only two officers, the one who pre- 
 sided (Ttpoecliog,) and the deacon. The presiding officer is mani- 
 festly the pastor or bishop of a particular congregation; the presid- 
 ing presbyter. The deacons are not preachers of the word, but 
 distributers of the sacramental emblems; as is clear from the words 
 of Justin. "On the day called Sunday, there is a meeting together 
 in one place of nil (believers) who dwell either in the city or the 
 country; and as far as time permits, the Commentaries of the Apos- 
 tles or the writings of the prophets are read. When the reader has 
 finished, he who presides (o TtposG'tug) gives an admonition, and an 
 exhortation to imitate these excellent things. Then we all rise up 
 together, and offer prayer. When we have finished praying, bread, 
 Tvine and water are brought; and he who presides presents sup- 
 
Ueview of Bishop Ravenscrqft's Vindication and Defence. 105 
 
 plications and thanksgiving, to the best of his ability; and the peo- 
 ple consent by saying, Amen. There is then a distribution of those 
 things, in relation to which thanks were given. They who are pre- 
 sent participate, and a portion is sent to those who are absent by 
 the deacons." After this, he says there is a collection made, and the 
 amount deposited with the presiding officer, who relieves orphans, 
 widows and the sick poor. Now Justin manifestly intends this to be 
 a full and fair account of the order and worship of every Christian 
 congregation. It was of the utmost importance, in this case, that he 
 should "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." 
 Any deviation or concealment would have been easily detected, and 
 highly injurious to the cause, which he was pleading before a hea- 
 then ruler. In the days of Justin, then, we are not warranted in 
 the belief that there were three orders in the christian ministrj^ 
 bishops, priests, and deacons. The evidence lies all the other 
 way. In Justin's days, too. there could have been no prescribed 
 liturgy; for, each, TtpOfCTTWg, presiding presbyter, prayed to the 
 best of his ability. 
 
 5. Our fifth witness is Irenjens. His works may be dated 
 between the years 170 and 180. They came to us chiefly under 
 the grievous disadvantage of a barbarous translation ; the original 
 being lost, except some fragments preserved by Eusebius and others. 
 In one respect, however, the testimony in favour of ministerial par- 
 ity is strengthened by this circumstance. The translation must 
 have been made some time after the original was written. But as 
 ive recede from the days of the Apostles, we find a gradual rise in 
 the claims and pretensions of the clergy. The translator then 
 would not be likely to express himself so strongly in favour of the 
 primitive equality, as Irenaeus himself did. He was also, if one 
 may judge from his style, an African ; and any thing from that 
 quarter, after the middle of the third century, in support of parity, 
 may be considered as extorted by the force of truth. 
 
 If we are not mistaken, Irenaeus first introduces the subject on 
 which we wish for his testimony, in the third book. His great ob- 
 ject here is to show that the church held the true doctrine, in op* 
 position to the heretics. To this end he shows in the first chapter 
 of this book, that the church received the gospel from the Apostles, 
 In the second chapter he says that the truth, delivered by the Apos- 
 tles, was preserved by the successio7is of the Presbyters.'' "Cum 
 autem ad earn iterum traditionem, quae est ab Apostolis, quae per 
 successiones Psesbyterorum in Ecclesiis custoditur, provocamus eos ; 
 adversantur traditioni, Dicentes se non solum Presbyteris, sed 
 etiam Apostolis existentes sapientiores, sinceram invenisse verita- 
 tem." "But when we bring them back again to the doctrine, which 
 was handed down from the Apostles, and is preserved in the 
 churches by the successioiis of the Presbyters, they set themselves 
 in opposition to this tradition, saying that they, being wiser not only 
 than the Presbyters, but even than the Apostles themselves, have 
 found out the pure truth." 
 
 This is very near the close of the 2d chapter, and in the one 
 immediately following, the writer undertakes to show that the 
 
iOS Review of Bishop Ravenscrofl*s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 church had preserved the truth taught by the Apostles, by giving 
 the succession of ministers in the two churches of Rome and 
 Smyrna. But the succession of Presbyters previously mentioned, is 
 in the 3d chapter called the succession of Bishops : and we have then 
 a list of the names of Linus, Anacletua, Clemens, (the one who 
 wrote the epistle to the Corinthians) Euarestus, Alexander, Sixtus, 
 &c. all of whom stand in the catalogue of Popes among Catholics ; 
 of diocesan bishops among high churchmen ; but by Irenaeus are 
 called indifferently bishops or presbyters. Or according to the 
 presbyterian platform, ivhich seems to agree exactly in this point 
 with Irenaeus, when spoken of indefinitely as ministers of the gospel, 
 they were called presbyters ; but when their relationship to one 
 particular church was in view, they were designated bishops. 
 
 Again ; in chap, xliii of Book the 4th, Irenaeus says, "Wherefore 
 they who are in the church, ought to obey the Presbyters, who have 
 successio7i from the Jipostles, as we have shown ; who together with 
 the succession of the episcopacy, have received the certain gift of 
 the truth, according to the good pleasure of the father." This suc- 
 cession of Presbyters, is in the very next sentence denominated 
 principal. And in the following chapter (xliv.) he speaks of Presby- 
 ters, elated with the pride of the highest honour — principalis cou' 
 sessionis tumore elati. Also in the close of this chapter, he says, 
 "the church nourishes Presbyters like those of whom the prophet 
 speaks, •'! will give your rulers in peace, and your bishops in righ- 
 teousness." In Book v. chapter 20, this father begins by saying 
 that all the teachers of heretics, are greatly inferior to the bishops, 
 to whom the apostles committed the churches ; and in a few senten- 
 ces affirms that "they who leave the church, bring a charge of ig- 
 norance against the holy Presbyters.'''' 
 
 Eusebius in Book v. chap. 20. 24, has preserved two fragments of 
 letters from Irenaeus, which deserve particular notice. In the one 
 to Florinus, we find the following : "These doctrines, they who 
 were Presbyters before us, and who where disciples of the Apostles, 
 by no means delivered to you." Then referring to Polycarp, 
 whose disciple, it seems Florinus had been at the same time with 
 Irenaeus, he says "And I can testify before God, that if that blessed 
 and Apostolical Presbyter had heard any such thing, he would have 
 stopped his ears, and after his usual manner have exclaimed, good 
 God ! for what times hast thou reserved me, that 1 should have to 
 bear such things." — This apostolical Presbyter, was the bishop of 
 Smyrna. Clearly therefore, with Irenaeus, there was no difference 
 between the presbyter and bishop. 
 
 But the next letter is perfectly decisive on this subject. It was 
 addressed to Victor, bishop of the church in Rome, now by the 
 Catholics called pope Victor. The subject is a controversy res- 
 pecting the observance of the day at present called Easter. "The 
 Presbyters who preceded Soter, and who presided over the church, 
 which you now govern, I mean Anicetus, and Pius, Hyginus and 
 Telesphorus and Sixtus, did not observe this festival, on the day in 
 which the bishops of Asia observed it," &c. Again : "But the 
 Presbyters who preceded you, although they observed it not, yet 
 eent the Eucharist to those who did observe it." Once more : he 
 
Meviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft*s Vindication and Defence, 107 
 
 says when Polycarp came to Rome, "he could not persuade Anice- 
 tus to adopt the same observance ; for he said that the custom of the 
 Presbyters, who went before him, ought to be retiiined." 
 
 Now all these persons, Soter, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Teles- 
 phorus, and Sixtus are, in modern times, honoured with the title 
 of Popes by some ; others make them diocesan bishops ; while 
 honest old Irenaeus, again and again calls them Presbyters; and 
 says that they were Presbyters, who governed the church at 
 Rome. It is perfectly clear that the word Presbyter is here used 
 in its official sense. And it is equally evident that there was, in the 
 days of Irenseus, no higher officer in the church than a Presbyter. 
 There is no getting over this conclusion. If then any ordinatioa 
 took place at all ; and on this subject there can be no doubt, it must 
 have been performed by Presbyters. Thus far the usage of scrip- 
 ture language was kept up in the church, and we find no order of 
 men superior to those who, as bishop R. admits, were in the New 
 Testament styled indifferently bishops or presbyters. The church 
 had not in 170 years found out a name for that other "order," 
 which the prelate of North Carolina found it so difficult to designate 
 by any appropriate scriptural name. 
 
 In tracing the history ofchurch government through the writings 
 of the ancient Fathers, he who begins at the beginning and reads 
 with no object but to find the truth, can scarcely fail to notice the 
 following particulars, 
 
 1. Officers, with extraordinary powers, were appointed for the 
 extraordinary occasion of introducing a new form of religion : these 
 were the Apostles and their assistants, the Evangelists, who had no 
 fixed charge, but the world for the theatre of their labours. 
 
 2. In the churches reared up by them, persons were appointed 
 to the office of religious teacher, who in the New Testament are 
 called indiscriminately, bishops and presbyters. There is reason 
 to believe, that in all the important churches, more than one teach- 
 er was appointed at the same time. See Phil, i, !. 
 
 3. The undisputed writings of the early ages, put it beyond all 
 doubt that until about the close of the second century, religious in- 
 structors were denominated, precisely as they were in the New 
 Testament, indifferently bishops or presbyters — so that the bishop 
 was a presbyter ; and the presbyter was a bishop, without any dif^ 
 ference of order or authority. 
 
 4. These presbyters, in their collective capacity, were denomi- 
 nated a presbytery, and to them was committed the whole govern- 
 ment of the church. They were appointed for this purpose with 
 the consent of the people. 
 
 6. In every meeting of the presbytery, there was a president, 
 chairman, or moderator, as is the case in all bodies of this kind. — ■ 
 He was in early times, most usually designated by the term TtposG-- 
 ?£<>$ or 6 ngoialaiJ£Vog. This usage is derived from the New Tes- 
 tament. See Rom. xii, 8. 1 Thesg. v, 12. 1 Tim. v, 17. But 
 it never entered into the minds of the primitive christians, that this 
 moderatorship conferred any rank, or constituted any thing like a 
 different order, It was a case exactly like that in our free institu- 
 14 
 
lOS Review of Bishop Ravenscrojt* s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 tions, where the speaker in a legislative assembly, the chairman of 
 a corporation meeting, the moderator of a presbytery, &c. is of the 
 same order, with all his fellow-members. 
 
 6. It it easy to see, about the close of the second century, and 
 the beginning of the third, some change in the usage of ecclesiasti- 
 cal writers. The change is this—the word (emCiXOTtog) bishop, 
 which for two hundred years had been, as we have seen, used in- 
 discriminately with (npsG^vJspog) elder, becomes somewhat more 
 appropriated to the presiding presb}'ter. But in all the writings 
 belonging to this period, it is manifest that the bishop is no more 
 than the presiding presbyter of each particular church ; and so the 
 word is to be understood, when it occurs in writers of this age. 
 
 7. In process of time to repress divisions and factions, it seems to 
 have been agreed that the presiding presbyter or bishop should 
 possess powers, not granted toother presbyters — such as the power 
 of baptizing, of ordaining, and the like. So that presbyters could 
 rot baptize without the permission of the bishop. But this step 
 only increased the power, but did not elevate the rank of the bishops. 
 
 8. It was not until the latter end of the third, and the first part 
 of the 4th century, that we find any real distinction in point of or- 
 der between bishops and presbyters. But when bishops were thus 
 distinguished, and the church became allied with the state, prelati- 
 cal pride and insolence grew with rapid strides. Yet in the fifth 
 century, the most learned of the Fathers had the courage and hon- 
 esty to affirm that the presbyters knew, and the bishops ought to 
 know that the superiority of the latter to the former was founded on 
 the custom of the church, and not on the appointment of the Lord. 
 
 These remarks will show that the word bishop is to be interpret- 
 ed in three different ways, according to the time when it is used. 
 
 1. In the New Testament, and the undisputed writings of the 
 Fathers to about the close of the second century, bishop and pres- 
 byter mean the same office. 
 
 2. For nearly a century after that lime, bishop means the pre- 
 siding presbyter of a particular church. 
 
 3. From about the beginning of the 4th century down, the term 
 is generally used to designate a minister of the gospel superior to 
 presbyters. It is very important to make, and keep in mind these 
 distinctions : otherwise, we shall suppose the ancient writers to 
 mean something which they never thought of at all. There have 
 been bishops ever since the church of Christ was organized — but a 
 bishop in the first and second centuries, is as unlike a modern pre- 
 late, as old Cincinnatus was unlike one of the Ccesars ; or as a plain 
 Scotch presbyter is unlike the archbishop of Canterbury. 
 
 But now we will proceed with our examination of the ancient 
 writers — although enough has already been done, to oblige bishop 
 R.J according to his pledge, to surrender all his pretensions. 
 
 6. Our sixth witness is Clemens Alexandrinus. He lived about 
 the close of the second, and beginning of the third century. This 
 Father does not directly speak of the order of the church, but in 
 several places incidentally mentions the various offices in the chris- 
 tian society. In his references to this subject, there is no evidence 
 
Meview of Bishop RavenscrofVs Vindicaiion and Defence^ 109 
 
 of any distinction of rank among religious teachers ; but indeed the 
 contrary. It was about his time that we find the first intimation 
 that the title of bishop was beginning to be appropriated to the pre- 
 siding presbyter of a particular church. But the very terms em- 
 ployed by him, show that " clerical propriety" was but little re- 
 garded in his day. For he speaks in one case of bishops, presby- 
 ters and deacons ; and in another, of presbyters, bishops, and dea- 
 cons, not caring who came first. But in every other passage of his 
 works, relating to this subject, we find a mode of speaking exactly 
 accordant with that which had been used before. In Pasdag. i. 99. D, 
 Edit. Sylburgii. 1641, he says, " we are shepherds, who govern 
 the churches, after the pattern of the good shepherd ; and you are 
 the sheep." Again, Lib. iii. 248. B. Speaking of ladies who wear 
 curls of other people's hair, he asks, " On whom does the Presby- 
 ter lay his hand ; and whom will he bless 1 not the woman thus 
 adorned, but the hair of some other person," &c. We pretend not 
 to decide what is meant by the imposition of hands here. It was 
 certainly an act of ministerial authority, so far to bestow a benedic- 
 tion. In what respect, then, did this presbyter differ from a bishop? 
 The next passage to be referred to, occurs in Lib. iii. 264. C^ 
 " Very many other precepts, appertaining to particular persons, are 
 written in the holy books ; some to elders, some to bishops, some 
 to deacons, and some to widows." It admits of a question here, 
 whether the author uses the first term in its general or official sig- 
 nification. It will scarcely be pretended that the widozvs mentioned 
 last, were officers in the church ; and why may not elders in the 
 first place, mean old men? Clement was very conversant with the 
 writings of Paul, and why may he not have had in mind, the fifth 
 chap, of 1st Timothy, where elder means an old man, ver. 1. and a 
 minister of the gospel, ver. 19 ? But if no stress ought to be laid 
 on this, the next passage is very decisive. Strom, iii. 464. D. 
 The subject here is marriage ; and Clement strongly maintains that 
 every one must be the husband of one wife, " whether he be pres- 
 byter, or deacon, or layman" XQCV TtpgCT/^i'lgpog yj , XOLV ^idxovog, 
 xav TMiXog. These words certainly are designed to include all 
 sorts of men in the church ; and if presbyter was not regarded by 
 him as the same with bishop, we can in no way account for his 
 leaving out 67tL(yxo7tog. The reader will observe that in pa. 459. 
 C. and 472. D, this writer does use the word eTtiCTxOTtOJ, bishop, foc 
 the presiding officer of a church ; while in the passage just cited, 
 he uses presbytery for the whole clergy. Here is decisive evidence 
 of our doctrine : while no difference of order is noted, the word 
 bishop was beginning to bo restricted in its application. In pa. 
 667. B. (Strom, vi.) he describes a true presbyter, and adds, "al- 
 though he should not on earth be honoured with ihc first seat, yet 
 he shall sit on the four and twenty thrones, judging the people, as 
 John says in the Revelation." Here is a plain and incontrovertible 
 reference to the presiding elder mentioned by preceding writers. 
 And in pa. 700. D. he speaks of the offices of the church in rela- 
 tion to their objects ; of which one is to promote emendation of lifej 
 tbe ether is merely the rendering of obedience ; antj he says that 
 
110 Heview of Bishop Rat' en$cr oft* s Vindication and Defmce. 
 
 the former of these belongs to the Elders ; the latter, to the dea- 
 cons. There is no distinct office here assigned to bishops. They 
 are not mentioned at all. On the whole, there was no such thing 
 as episcopal order, superior to that of presbyters, in the days of this 
 learned Father. 
 
 7. In the next place, we take up TertuUian. This Father, who 
 lived till near A. D. 220, does not furnish much on the subject now 
 before us. But, taking all that he says together, it is apparent that 
 the form of the church, in his day, was just what we have previ- 
 ously stated. There was no difference of order among the clergy 
 but the presiding elders were very commonly called bishops. He 
 sometimes, however, as he wrote in Latin, uses the term antistes^ 
 which exactly answers to the ngoiolag of Justin and other preced- 
 ing writers. We are assured that presbyters presided in their reli- 
 gious assemblies; that the presidents alone baptized and adminis- 
 tered the Lord's supper; and that he did this three times a week. 
 This president he sometimes calls bishop; and the succession of 
 such bishops he traces back to the Apostles. It would be tedious 
 to continue the quotation of particular passages from every writer 
 that comes in course. We therefore content ourselves with the as- 
 surance that every affirmation here made is capable of the most 
 rigid proof. The Edition of TertuUian, from which we were pre- 
 pared to make extracts, is that of Rigaltius. Paris 1661. 
 
 8. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, suffered martyrdom, as is gen- 
 erally believed, about the year of our Lord 258. He affords a 
 striking example of a man pious, zealous, yet rather too fond of 
 power, and strongly desirous to increase the authority of bishops; 
 but withal too honest to pretend that all power was in his hands. 
 II is easy to see, by comparing his writings and sentiments, with 
 these previously noticed, that the term bishop was more and more 
 appropriated to the presiding presbyter; and that the claims of the 
 president of the presbytery were considerably extended. Yet 
 still, the bishop was no more than parochial bishop — His authority 
 did not extend beyond a single congregation; and he could do 
 nothing without the consent of his fellow-presbyters. The follow- 
 ing references to the Oxford Edition of Cyprian's works 1682, 
 will fully bear out these assertions, pp. 168, T. 202, E. It is not 
 allowed to any but the bishop, or president of the church to bap- 
 tize. Nos tantum qui, domino permittente, primum baptisma cre- 
 dentibus dedimus, &c. — Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui 
 in Ecclesia baptizantur, prcepositis Ecclesia offerantur, et per nos- 
 tram orationem ac manus impositionem, Spiritum Sanctum conse- 
 quantur, et signaculo Dominico consummentur. In instances too 
 numerous to be mentioned, Cyprian calls the presbyters of the 
 church of Carthage his fellow-presbyters. But it is needless to 
 multiply words for the proof of that which is indisputable; namely 
 that Cyprian was a parochial bishop. At the same time, it is 
 freely conceded that in the writings of Cyprian, as we now have 
 them, a distinction is made between the bishop and presbyter, 
 which is found in no undisputed writings before this period. There 
 is indeed much reason to believe that Cyprian laid the foundation 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscrojt^s Vindicalion and Defence, Hi 
 
 for the establishment of a new order in the church. A statement 
 has been made on this subject, which presents to us every ap- 
 pearance of truth and reason. 
 
 When a. presiding presbyter was appointed in a church, it was by 
 the concurrence of the presbytery and the people. The presby- 
 ters by no means raised him to a higher order; he was only primus 
 inter paris, the Jirst among equals. The whole authority of all 
 presbyters, throughout the world, was derived from the word of 
 God, or, which is the same thing, from the appointment of Christ. 
 But the presiding member was raised to the tirst seat, and inducted 
 by his co-presbyters. The case of Cyprian, however, was one of 
 singular character. His popular talents occasioned his election to 
 the office of presiding presbyter, or bi6hop,very shortly after his con- 
 version from heathenism, a considerable majority of the presbyters 
 of the church of Carthage opposed this election; probably because 
 they saw his aspiring disposition. This opposition seemed to ex- 
 asperate the bishop of Carthage not a little. His 43d letter af- 
 fords ample proof of this. And he seems to have set himself to 
 exalt the bishop's power, and depress the presbyters as much as 
 possible. From him we first hear of a new ordination, by which 
 a presbyter was raised to be a bishop. His talents and influence 
 were great; and he caused them to be felt thi'ough the whole 
 christian world. We cannot help attributing to him the accelera- 
 tion of that change in the polity of the church, which has pro- 
 duced incalculable mischief to the true interests of religion through 
 many successive centuries. 
 
 Yet after all the efforts made by this Father to enlarge episco- 
 pal power, much remained to be done after his day to complete the 
 fabric of the hierarchy. 
 
 For we find, near the close of his life, a letter written to him, 
 on occasion of his dispute with Stephen, bishop of Rome, by Fir- 
 milianus bishop of Cajsarea, in which the old doctrine is clearly 
 stated, Ep. Ixxv, pa. 221. "Sed et ceteri quique heretici, si se ab 
 Ecclesia Dei sciderint, nihil habere potestatis aut gratiae possunt, 
 quando omnis potestas et gratia in Ecclesia constituta sit, ubi prces' 
 ident major es natu qui et baptizandi et manum imponendi et ordin- 
 andi /JossicZeni po<cs?'a<em." The sense of which is, if heretics of 
 any kind separate themselves from the church of God, they pos- 
 sess nothing of power or grace; since all power and grace is seated 
 in the church, where presbyters preside, who possess the power of 
 baptizing and laying on the hand and ordaining. The phrase ma- 
 jores natu here must be taken as a translation of TtpSd^vlspoif used 
 too in its official sense; for old men as such did not preside in the 
 church; much less did the power here specified belong to them. 
 Baptizing, laying on of hands, and ordaining were official acts. Fir- 
 milianus then does expressly affirm that Elders had the power of 
 ordai7iing. 
 
 It is unnecessary to pursue this detail farther. We have seen 
 that for 250 years, presbyters were bishops, and bishops were 
 presbyters. About the close of this period, the change began 
 which issued in the establishment of high church principles. It 
 crept on slowly for a while; but afterwards made rapid increase, 
 
11£ Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence^ 
 
 so as to be pretty firmly established in the 4th and 5th centuries. 
 Had our limits permitted us to make a more complete deduction^ 
 the evidence would have been much stronger. 
 
 The examination here made of the question before us, has been 
 pursued through the original writers. Nothing has been taken oa 
 trust, and we have been brought to our conclusion by a deduction, 
 which we conscientiously believe to be fair. And now we must 
 be excused if we turn to our " favourite" Jerome, and compare 
 his account of this matter with our own. But we wish it to be un- 
 derstood, that we have nothing to do with Jerome's account of the 
 church in his own time. It is readily admitted that between the 
 death of Cyprian in 258, and the days of Jerome, who died in 420, 
 great and injurious changes had taken place in the order and disci- 
 pline of the church. At the period of Jerome's death Christianity 
 had been in alliance with the imperial government of Rome for 
 nearly 100 years. We wish to know what the most learned of the 
 Fathers, he " whom all good men loved and admired" testifies con- 
 cerning the pure, primitive, apostolic church, and the manner in 
 which its government was changed. This information may be ob- 
 tained from his commentaries, and his celebrated epistle to Eva- 
 grius. There he expressly treats of the very questions now under 
 consideration. In other parts of his writings, he speaks of the 
 church as it was in his day, when the primitive form was changed. 
 We hope to be excused for giving the testimony of this Father at 
 full length, because of its importance. 
 
 " Let us diligently attend to the words of the apostle, in which he 
 says ' That thou shouldest ordain presbyters in every city, as I had 
 appointed thee'' — Discoursing in what follows on the sort of maa 
 that ought to be ordained presbyter, he says, ' If any be blameless, 
 the husband of one wife,'' 4-c. and afterwards he adds, * For a bishop 
 must be blameless, as the steward of God.^ A presbyter therefore is 
 the same as a bishop; and before there were, by the instigation of 
 the devil, parties in religion, and it was said by the people, ' I am 
 of Paul, and 1 of ApoUos, and I of Cephas,' the churches were gov- 
 erned by the common council of presbyters. But afterwards, 
 when every one supposed, that those whom he baptized, belonged 
 to him, and not to Christ, it was decreed through the whole world, 
 that one chosen from the Presbyters should be set over the rest to 
 whom the whole care of the Church should belong, that thus the 
 seeds of schisms might be taken away. Should any one suppose 
 that it is 7ny doctrine, and not that of the scriptures, that bishop and 
 presbyter are the same, and that one is the name of age, the other 
 of office, let him read again the words of the Apostle to the Philip- 
 pians, where he says, " Paul and Timotheus, servants of Jesus 
 Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with 
 the bishops and deacons, grace to you and peace, &.c." Philippi is 
 but one city of Macedonia, and certainly there could not be more 
 than one bishop in a city, as bishops are now styled. But at that 
 time, they called the same persons bishops and presbyters, there- 
 fore he spoke, without distinction, of bishops as presbyters. This 
 may appear doubtful to some, unless it be proved by additional 
 *e£timony.— In the Acts of the Apostles it ia wiitten, that when the 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft*s Vindicaiion and Defence, 313 
 
 Apostle came to Miletus, he sent to Ephesus, and called the presby- 
 ters o{ that church, to whom, among other things, he said, " take 
 heed to yourselves, and to all the flock over which the Holy Spirit 
 hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord, which he 
 hath purchased with his own blood." Here take particular notice, 
 that on calling the Presbyters of one city, Ephesus, he styled them 
 bishops.''^ 
 
 " If any will receive the epistle which is written in the name of 
 Paul to the Hebrews, there also the care of the church is equally 
 divided among many, since he writes to the people, 'Obey the7n tliat 
 have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for 
 your souls as those that must give account, that they may do it with 
 joy and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you.' And Peter, 
 (called thus fi om the firmness of his faith) in his Epistle, saith, "the 
 Presbyters which are among you 1 exhort, who am also a Presbyter, 
 and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the 
 glory that shall be revealed — Feed the flock of God which is 
 among you, not by constraint but willingly." These things have I 
 written for the purj)ose of showing that among the ancients, pres- 
 byters and BISHOPS were the same. But that by little and little, 
 (pAULATiM,) that the plants of dissention might he plucked up, the 
 whole care was devolved on one. As therefore the presbyters know 
 4hatthey are subjected to him who is placed over them by the cus- 
 tom OF THE CHURCH ; SO the BISHOPS shoidd know that they are superior 
 to presbyters rather by custom, than by any real appointment of the 
 Lord, (magis consuetudine, quam dispositiones dominicce veritate,) 
 and that they ought to rule the church in common, imitating Moses, 
 who, when he might have ruled the people of Israel alone, chose 
 seventy with whom he might judge the people." Thus does our 
 "favourite," " the most learned of the Fathers," " the prince of 
 divines," state the doctrine and the fact, in his commentary on Titus. 
 The celebrated epistle to Evagrius furnishes the following ex- 
 tract. " I hear that a certain person has broken out into such 
 folly that he prefers deacons before presbyters, that is before 
 bishops ; for when the Apostle clearly teaches that presbyters and 
 bishops are the same, v.'ho can endure it that a minister of tables 
 and WIDOWS should proudly exalt himself above those at whose 
 prayers the body and blood of Christ is made. Do you seek for 
 authority? Hear that testimony, " Paul and Timothy servants of 
 Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, 
 with the bishops and deacons"~Would you have another example? 
 In the Acts of the Apostles, Paul speaks thus to the priests of one 
 church — "Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over which 
 the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, that you govern the church, 
 which he hath purchased with his own blood. And lest any should 
 contend about there bping a plurality of bishops in one church, 
 hear also another testimony, by which it may most manifestly be 
 proved, that a bishop and a presbyter are the same — "For this 
 cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in order the things 
 that are wanting, and ordain presbyters in every city as I have ap- 
 pointed thee. If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, &c. 
 For a BISHOP must be blaroeless, as a steward of God." And to 
 
114 Heview of Bishop Ravenscroft^s VimUcation and Defence. 
 
 Timothy — "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given 
 thee by prophecy, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery." 
 And Peter also, in his first epistle, saith, "The Presbyters which 
 are among you I exhort, who am also a Presbyter, &c. to rule the 
 flock of Christ, and to inspect it, not of constraint, but willingly 
 according to God;" which is more significantly expressed in the 
 Greek; STUCxOTtDwleg, that is superintending it, whence the name 
 of bishop is derived. Do the testimonies of such men appear 
 small to thee? Let the evangelical trumpet sound,* the son of 
 thunder, whom Jesus loved much, who drank the streams of doc- 
 trine from our Saviour's breast — "The Presbyter to the elect lady 
 and her children, whom 1 love in the truth." — And in another 
 epistle, "The Presbyter to the beloved Gains, whom I love in the 
 truth." — But the choosing of one afterwards, who should be set 
 above the rest, took place as a remedy against schism; lest every 
 one drawing the work of Christ to himself, should break it in pieces. 
 For at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and 
 Dionysius, the bishops thereof, the Presbyters always named one, 
 &c."t [as given before.] 
 
 We deem it necessary to make no comments on this passage. It 
 is a plain statement of facts, and a series of arguments founded on 
 these facts, which never can be refuted. The history of the 
 church for 400 years bears out this favourite of ours, in every 
 important particular. The truth of the case may be brought into 
 a nutshell. In conformity with the maxims of our Lord, and with 
 Apostolical appointment, the ordinary and perpetual ministers of 
 the gospel were all equal — This continued until the church began 
 to grow in worldly power and influence; when the plan of having 
 a number of equal Presbyters in one church, produced factions, 
 divisions, and frequent schisms — For the prevention of this evil 
 the power of presiding Presbyter was enlarged, and he was called 
 bishop. This advantage being given to the president of the Pres- 
 bytery, he used it to raise himself; so that out of this arrangement, 
 diocesan episcopacy sprung up. In process of time, the bishops 
 were thought to need some head, and Metropolitans were appoint- 
 ed — after that Patriarchs; and finally a Pope. The expedient to 
 prevent schism turned out so badly, that at the Reformation, most 
 of those who broke their allegiance to the pope, thought it much 
 the best way to return to the primitive simplicity of ancient times. 
 Unhappily for us, the Reformation in England was the work of the 
 government and not of the people. The eighth Harry, and queen 
 Elizabeth, took the place of the pope, and became heads of the 
 church, unfrocking bishops with as little ceremony as diocesans 
 use towards their Presbyters. But it did not suit the notions of 
 these Defenders of the Faith, to have the ancient discipline restored. 
 The republican system of Geneva alarmed the jealous spirit of 
 these monarchs and their successors; and hence many features of 
 the prevalent polity were retained. 
 
 * This is a rhetorical description of John the Apostle. 
 f The translation of this passage has been borrowed, with Veiy slight Ver- 
 bal alterations, from Dr Miller's Letters, 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft*s Vindication and Defence. 115 
 
 But now let us look back for a moment. The only instance re- 
 corded in the New Testament, of the specific manner of ordination 
 states explicitly, that the ceremony was performed by a Presby- 
 tery. — The pastors of churches, invested as they were with full 
 powers of government, were styled indifferently bishops or presby- 
 ters. In the undisputed writings of the Fathers for 250 years, there 
 is no hint of a distinction between bishops and presbyters ; and 
 there were no other ministers of the gospel in the church : the 
 succession of ministers is traced through them ; and they are ap- 
 pealed to as men who preserved the apostolical doctrine. — It is 
 expressly affirmed that they had power of baptizing, laying on 
 hands, and ordaining. — It has been made evident, too, that the 
 raising of men to episcopal superiority was an innovation on the 
 practice of the church as followed for 250 years. So then, if there 
 was ordination at all, it was done by presbyters. And now we 
 appeal to our readers, whether bishop R. is not obliged to give up 
 his pretensions. Nay more ; — presbyters know (if we may adopt 
 in part the language of our favorite Jerome,) and bishops ought lo 
 know, that as diocesans they derive no power of ordination from 
 the appointment of the Lord ; the word of God gives them no au- 
 thority. Their whole ordaining power, according to the scriptures, 
 is derived from this, that they are presbyters. They are bishops, 
 that is they are of a superior order, solely by the custom of the church. 
 And if our episcopal brethren choose so to manage their affiiirs, as 
 to appoint one of their presbyters to a higher station, and call him 
 bishop, entrusting him with the general superintendence of their 
 affairs, we are among the last who will say a single word against it. 
 But when men thus elevated, pretend that they have a divine right, 
 that Apostolical succession is in them alone ; that all who are sepa- 
 rated from them, are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and 
 strangers to the covenants of promise ; when they put themselves 
 forward as substitutes for the person of Christ, and claim that au- 
 thority, which since the death of the inspired Apostles, is vested 
 in the word God alone, we do think that it is the interest of the 
 whole church in all its departments, that these monstrous preten- 
 sions should be put down. 
 
 It is due to candor to say, that while we have no quarrel with 
 Episcopalians at all; and would say nothing against that legitimate, 
 episcopacy, which owes its origin, and all its authority to the cus- 
 tom of the church, we certainly do think that the primitive minis- 
 terial equality is by far the safest. 
 
 Before we proceed to notice bishop R.'s defence of his conduct 
 in regard to the Bible Society, there are a few other particulars in 
 relation to the Church, which claim our attention. 
 
 Our readers know that the uninterrupted succession of bishops, 
 from the days of the Apostles, according to this prelate, affords the 
 only means of ■verifying the Church of Christ; and indeed is essen- 
 tial to its existence. Whereas we hold that, wherever there is a 
 society receiving the doctrine t;iught by Christ and bis Apostles, 
 and obeying his precepts, there is a Church of Christ; and that the 
 system of truth embodied in the writings of the Apostles, and given 
 to men for their instruction, furnishes means of easy application, by 
 15 
 
\16 litview of Bishop Ravenscr oft* s Vindication and Defence'. 
 
 which the Church may be verified. The case appears to us too 
 plain almost for reasoning. — After the revolutions of 1 800 years, and 
 the violent changes which the Church has undergone; after long 
 periods of barbarian ignorance and superstition; the total loss of 
 many of the works of Christian writers, and the corruption of others, 
 we yet have the New Testament uncorrupted — There we find the 
 truth in its primitive purity and »implicilv. And shall we turn 
 from this fountain of living waters to a broken cistern? Shall we 
 resort to tradition, and to the most unsatisfactory parts of ecclesias- 
 tical history, to ascertain whether we are warranted to hope for the 
 blessings which God has promised, in his word, to bestow on the 
 penitent believer? Let us suppose that after the lapse of twenty 
 centuries, and a thousand changes in this country, the Constitutioa 
 of the United States should be preserved without corruption, and 
 the people of that future age should elect a President according to 
 the mode prescribed in that sacred instrument, could they not de- 
 termine whether he were duly authorized to administer the affairs 
 of the nation, without going back through every age, and ascertain- 
 ing whether the ruler of the country had been duly elected, and the 
 Chief Justice, who administers the oath of office duly appointed in 
 every case? And does the President derive his authority from the 
 Chief Justice, who officiates at his inauguration? 
 
 In order to increase the weight of the difficulties, which hang on 
 the bishop's scheme, our Reviewer referred to the case which oc- 
 curred at the Era of the Reformation. There seemed then, at any 
 rate, to be a breach in the succession; for the English Reformers 
 were, one and all ex-communicated, and cut off from the holy Ro- 
 man Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
 
 Bishop R. "mistakes his man'" again, when he supposes that this 
 was intended as an argumentum ad invidiam — it was rather designed 
 ad hominem, and merely, as was said, to multiply difficulties in the 
 way of our diocesan. We advert to it here, for the sake of setting 
 this whole matter in what appears to us a just point of light, and 
 adding some information which may be useful to our readers. 
 
 In pa. 50, bishop R. says, "1 must take the liberty to contradict 
 your assertion that all the world knows, that the British Church re- 
 ceived her orders from the Bishop or Pope of Rome; for that is the 
 notion invariably attached to the words ^'Church of Rome" by 
 ninety-nine in the hundred, who either hear or read them. Whe- 
 ther that is the meaning you meant to convey, you best know, but 
 in this the most common acceptation of the words, it is not the fact, 
 and therefore neither you, nor all the world can know any such 
 thing." 
 
 We are not prepared to say what meaning ninety-nine in the hun- 
 dred attach to the words "Church of Rome;" but we know that 
 our Reviewer did not mean by them, tke Pope. We do not admit 
 that all the bishops, presbyters and deacons in the world constitute 
 a Church, much less that one man can do so. No: we meant plainly 
 what we said. And we humbly protest against this change in our 
 words, made one would think for the pleasure of contradiction. It 
 is nothing to us, nor to our cause, whether the "succession of any 
 Protestaat hierarchical Church is derived through the person of the 
 
Review of Bishop KavenscroJV s Vindication and Defence. 1 1 7 
 
 Bishop or Pope of Rome," or not. Bishop R. may state this mat- 
 ter as he pleases. But he Si\ys (pa. 50) "It is not an unreasonable 
 or unfounded assumption — that in the wide and extended boundary 
 [query — why a wide boundary?] of the western Church, the or- 
 daining power was canonically transmitted in the regular succession 
 from bishop to bishop, without contracting any fancied contamina- 
 tion from the person of the Pope." — On this we have only two very 
 brief remarks to otTer. 1. In a case of this kind, where our hopes 
 of salvation are concerned, "assumption" passes with us for no- 
 thing — We must have proof. 2. The person of the Pope has no- 
 thing to do with the statements of our Reviewer. The bishop pro- 
 ceeds — "With res|»ect to the succession of the British Church in 
 particular, and so far as that flows through the Western Church — 
 we know that the bishop of Rome had, personally, little or nothing 
 to do with it up to the 7th century; it was an independent apostol- 
 ical Church under its own bishops. Its connexion with the Church 
 of Rome commenced with Augustine the Monk, who was consecra- 
 ted the first archbishop of Canterbury, not by the bishop of Rome, 
 but by the archbishop of Aries, in France, early in the 7th cen- 
 tury." 
 
 We do not stay to criticise language here. The correctness of 
 this statement as far as it goes is admitted. But the bishop gives 
 his readers a very inadequate view of this part of Ecclesiastical 
 History. It seems now to be generally admitted that Christianity 
 was introduced into Britain at a very early period. Many believe 
 that Caractacus, the Britisli kiiig, who was carried captive to Rome 
 in the reign of Claudius, and after being detained for several years, 
 was honorably dismissed, carried the blessing of the gospel to his 
 native land. These events took place between A. D. 52 and 57; 
 about the very time when a Church was being organized at Rome: 
 long and long before any distinction was made between Bishops and 
 Presbyters. The Church in Britain was then organized in its pri- 
 mitive simplicity, when the pastor of every Church was a bishop. 
 Others, following the venerable Bede, say that the Church was 
 planted in that Island in the early part of the second century. Re- 
 ligion must have made considerable progress in England, as appears 
 from the numbers who suffered under the persecution of Diocle- 
 tian. 
 
 In the year 450, that country was invaded by the Saxons. The 
 consequences are well known — the original inhabitants were driven 
 into Wales, and the Saxons, a pagan horde, took complete possession 
 of England. 
 
 Augustine the Monk was sent by the bishop of Rome to convert 
 these heatnens, about the year 597. That lie was a superstitious 
 and very credulous man, is evident from his letters to Gregory, 
 bishop of Rome, to whose interests he appears to have been devoted. 
 Having obtamed some little success, and being full of hope, he went 
 over to France, and got himself consecrated archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, when there was not a single bishop in all England. Frooa 
 that time the connexion was established between England and the 
 Church of Rome, which continued until the glorious Reformation. 
 
 In process of time some intercourse t«ok place between the c^n- 
 
1 1 S Review of Eislwp RavtnscroJCs Vindicaiiou and Defence], 
 
 •^erled Saxons and the native Christians in Wales; but it was an in- 
 lercourse of Contention, on the ground that the Britons would not 
 submit to the Church of Rome. 
 
 But in the meanwhile, the establishments of the Culdees were 
 jnade in Ireland, the Western islands, and Scotland; and Mission- 
 aries were sent by them for the conversion of the pagans in the 
 northern parts of England. The Culdees differed from the adherents 
 of Rome both in doctrine and order. As to the former, the chai'ac- 
 teristic difference was, the sufficiency of the Scriptures and a resolute 
 rejection of tradition: — as to the latter, they were in all important 
 respects Presbyterians. With them, a man ordained to th..- vvorv of 
 the ministry, was a Presbyter; ,->w\ the Pre-^byter, when appointed to 
 the Pastoral Charge, ivas < tiled a bishop. This ordination and ap- 
 pointment were uniformly made by Presbyters. " Such was tiie case 
 with respect to Corman, bishop of the Northumbrians, as well as Ar- 
 dan, Finan, and Colmao, who succeeded each other. From the testi- 
 mony of Bede it is evidentthat, by means of Scottish Missionaries, 
 and of those whom they had instructed and ordained, not only the 
 Northumbrians, but the Middle Angles, the Mercians, and East 
 Saxons, all the way to the river Thames, that is, the inhabit, tnl-s of 
 by flir the greatest part of the country now called England, were 
 converted to Christianity, and for some time acknowledged subjec- 
 tion to the ecclesiastical government of the Scots. The latter lost 
 their influence, merely because their Missionaries chose rather to 
 give up their charges, than submit to the prevailing influence of the 
 Church of Rome, to which the Saxons of the West, antl of Kent, 
 had subjected themselves." It was about thirty years after the com- 
 mencement of the missions of the Culdees among the Saxons, when 
 they were obliged to submit toRome. or retire. All but one bishop 
 chose the latter part of the alternative. But among the Scots, they 
 continued for six or seven centuries, and left an impression on the 
 national character, which showed itself at the Reformation. This 
 glorious religious revolution was brought about in Scotland by the 
 people, in England by the arbitrary power of the government. The 
 population of Scotland from the beginning manifested a determined 
 preference for Presbyterian Parity, the government of England for 
 Diocesan Prelacy. 
 
 After the retirement of the Presbyter-bishops from the north of 
 England, the influence of Rome soon became paramount, and the 
 Church as completely Popish, as the sovereign Pontiff could wish. 
 Yet as one of these Presbyters remained in his bisiiopric, and as 
 there were innumerable multitudes of their converts from the bor- 
 ders of Scotland, to the Thames, it is very possible that a high 
 Churchman, deriving through the English succession, may meet in 
 his course, a Presbyter of Jona, instead of a Prelate. But this by 
 the way. 
 
 The Church of England became as completely Popish as the 
 Church of Italy. But bishop R. thinks that even if the Church of 
 England derived Orders directly from the person of the bishop of 
 Rome, inasmuch as he "had a true succession from the Apostles of 
 Christ, the transfer of that succession was not nullified by hi? 
 usurpations, or even by his personal ungodliness." It is not at al! 
 
Meriew of Bishop Ravenscrqfl's Vindication and Defence. 119 
 
 surprising that an unintelligible subject should cause a man of con- 
 siderable sagacity to use very strange language. To have a true 
 succession, and to transfer that succession, are phrases which bishop 
 R. ought to explain. What sort of thing is this, which a man holds, 
 and transfers to others? But the bishop cannot get along here, 
 without a fling at Calvin. And as it has been some time since we 
 gave a specimen of the style and manner of our Prelate, we treat 
 our readers with the following extract. After the sentence last 
 quoted, he proceeds thus, 
 
 " Among tlie many and grievous corruptions of that cluirch, is the succes- 
 sion of its Bisliops to be so considered ? I snspcct if this is properly searclied 
 into, tlie mosi grievous corruption, the succession of the christian ministry 
 from Christ s Apostles, as the root of the ordaining power in the visible 
 churci), is capable of — will be found to originate with those men, who in the 
 sixteenth century, usurped the power of comn itting to others, what never 
 was committed to themselves — what tliey never possessed in any previous 
 age of the church, and for whose right to exercise the ordaining power, not 
 the shadow of a proof has ever been produced, either from scripture, rightly 
 interpreted, or from antiquity, and whose author cannot be shown, ever to 
 liave had orders of any kind, Popish or Protestant. If such an uncertainty 
 (not to say breach) could be asserted of the ministerial succession through 
 the line of Bishops, as can be asserted and assigned too, in the line of Pres- 
 byters, so far as Calvin is concerned — no sincere man could contend for it. 
 He would have to look elsewhere than in the succession of the Western 
 Church, for that appointment of Heaven which alone gives certainty to the 
 church, as the one undivided spouse and body of Christ — To that truth, of 
 which it is the pillar and ground— To the faith once delivered to the saints 
 — To the sacraments as seals and pledges of covenanted engagements and 
 means of grace — To the hope of man, as founded on revealed mercy, and 
 built on tlie firm and unsevered foundation of the faith and order of the gos- 
 pel mutually confirming each other." — pp. 51. 
 
 We have shewn that Presbyters had, and exercised what is called 
 the ordaining power, from the days of the Apostles to the year of 
 Christ 250; that they possessed and exercised it, in parts of the 
 Church remote from the corruptions of Rome, for centuries after- 
 ward; and it follows that the exclusive exorcise of this power by 
 diocesan bishops is an usurpation. They have a right to ordain, 
 not because they are bishops, but because they are Presbyters. And 
 (he exercise of this right by Presbyters in the 16th century, was a 
 bringing back of primitive order; placing the Church on the true 
 Apostolic foundiition. 
 
 Besides; the Presbyterian Cliurch does not derive, nor pretend 
 to derive any authority from Calvin; they do not trace their ordain- 
 ing power to him. They owe nothing to him except what they owe 
 to the Reformers in general — save only that they regard him as the 
 most enliglilened among them, and amidst errors common to all, the 
 one who most clearly understood the system of truth taught in the 
 scriptures. The "judicious Hooker" says of him — "whom, for 
 mine own part, I think incomparably the wisest man that ever the 
 French Church did enjoy, since the hour it enjoyed him. His 
 bringing up was in the study of the civil law. Divine knowledge 
 he gathered not by hearing or reading, so much as by teaching 
 others. For though thousands were debtors to him, as touching 
 knowledge in that kind., yet he to none but only to God. (he author 
 
120 Review of Bishop Ravenscrofl-s VmUcation and liej'ence. 
 
 of that most blessed fountain, the Book of Life, and of the admirable 
 dexterity of wit, together with the helps of other learning, which 
 were his guid.'s." Preface, pa. 80. London edition, 1821. — Again, 
 pa. 86, "We should be injurious to virtue it-^elf, if we did derogate 
 from them, whom their industry h;ith m;ide great. Two things ot 
 principal moment there are which have deservedly procured him 
 honor throughout the world: the one, his exceeding p.iins in compo- 
 sing the Institutions of Christiari religion; the other, his no less 
 industrious travels for exposition of Holy Scripture, according to 
 the same Institutions. In which two thin<j;s, whosoever they were 
 that after him bestowed tiieir I ibor, he gained the advantage of 
 prejudice against them if they gains, lyed; and of glory above them 
 if they consented." To as>ail the reput.ition of this great man, is 
 now thought by many the way to raise themselves. One consola- 
 tion is, that this commonplace railing carries its own condemnation 
 with it; because it carries evidence that the revilers of Calvin are 
 ignorant of his life and writings. They retail only the second-hand 
 reproaches of old enemies of the Reformation, We cannot think it 
 necessary to employ time in proving that Calvin was ordained to 
 the Ministry. 
 
 Bishop R. proceeds in hi? usual style, and remarking that the 
 power claimed by the Pope was unlawful power, maintains that this 
 does not nullify the power rightfully and lawfully possessed by him. 
 And he thinks that it is worthy of himself and his cause to say 
 "Certainly, sir, you hiow that it is a maxim of the soundest reason, 
 though I doubt whether you -will ackno7isledge it, that usurped power 
 cannot pass into lawful authority." We mark this sentence simply 
 for the sake of letting our readers occasionally see the spirit of the 
 book we are reviewing. It abounds with offensive things of this 
 sort, which would greatly irritate men of a different spirit from ours; 
 but which our imperturbable good humor enables us to pass over 
 without an angry feeling. 
 
 The bishop goes on to observe that the Pope's supremacy was 
 an usurpation; and that his brother bishops had a perfect right, to 
 resume their independence of character, when they had discover- 
 ed the corruptions on which this antichristian domination was built 
 up ; and then proceeds thus, 
 
 «« While therefore Bishop Ravenscroft would not admit the ordainingr or 
 any other power, of an excommunicated and deposed Bishop, he would 
 yet take the liberty to examine and determine wlietlier sucli exconimunica- 
 tionand deposition were lawfully and regularly pronounced, and thereupon 
 decided for himself. Nothing like a superiority of spiritual power or au- 
 thority is known or owned among christian Bishops, fhe Episcopate is 
 one, of which each Bisiiop holds a part. This jiart is equal in each, and in- 
 cludes all powers ovigimilly annexed to the officf by its founder, "tlie shepherd 
 and Bishop of our souls." These original powers do not include the tre- 
 mendous power of excommunicating each other— no single Bishop can ex- 
 ercise it towards another Bishop — where it becomes necessary to resort to 
 it, it must be the act of ihat particular body or church, to which the ofiend- 
 •ing Bishop belongs, and if regularly and canonically pronounced, will be 
 respected by the church catholic. But if founded upon usurped power, or 
 uncanonically and irregularly pronounced, it cannot rescind and annul the 
 power conferred on a Bishop or Bishops, by their regular and canonical 
 consecration. And this is a necessary consequence from the very nature and 
 
Htvitw of Bishop RavenserofVs Vindicalion and 'Defence. 121' 
 
 Fundamentals of society, or associated individuals, whether the purpose of 
 their association be, civil or rehgious. If, for example — the Bishop and 
 Clergy of the diocese of Norlh-Carolina, should undertake to fulminate a 
 Bull of excommunication against a particular Bishop, or against all the 
 American Bishops — would it in any way, or in the judgment of any sound 
 mind, be entitled to respect, or considered as at all affecting their lawful 
 power and authority? And prenst-l) of tlie samt- worth, is the excommuni- 
 cation of the reforming Bistiops, clergy and people, by the Bishop of Rome, 
 and his consistory of C;»rdmals. It was a mere nullity, sanctioned by no 
 principle of reason or religion, and is of no avail, even to a contender for 
 parity, in assigning it as a breach in the apostolical succession of the Protes- 
 tant Episcopal Church." — pp. 52. 
 
 We really respect the ingenuitj and ability displayed in this 
 part of bishop R's book; and sincerely give him our praise for 
 managing his argument here vvith admirable dexterity. Still, how- 
 ever, in our judgment, he has not relieved his doctrine of succes- 
 sion from the difficulty started by our Reviewer. The Church is 
 one — says bishop R. and the Episcopate is one; of which each 
 bishop holds an equal part; [no matter how many or how {ey/."] 
 Here then, we observe by the vvay, our bishop is a decided advo- 
 Gate oi parity ; as fierce for it as any Presbylei i.m. But the origi- 
 nal powers belonging to bishops do not include the tremendous 
 power of excommunication — '■'■thh must be the act of that particular 
 body or church, to which the offending bishop belongs.^'' So then 
 there is a church, as well as the church. But we wish to know 
 Avhat is meant by a church here — Is it a company of faithful men, 
 believers in the Lord Jesus? Or is it a body of clergymen, with- 
 out a bishop? Or is it a number of bishops? But we would ask, 
 'how is this particular Church constituted, and its limits fixed, so as 
 to determine the extent of ecclesiastical jurisdiction? It must be 
 either by a submission to the civil |)ower, and a compliance with 
 their prescriptions ; or by the voluntary consent of those who con- 
 stitute the Church. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Conven- 
 tion of North Carolina is coextensive with the boundaries of the 
 State; because is was agreed by Episcopalians that it should be so. 
 — It is so in relation to the general convention of the Episcopal 
 Church in the United States. Sure we are that the New Testa- 
 ment does not require that any regard should be paid to geographi- 
 cal limits, in constituting Churches. In England, as far as the 
 Church is not a creature of the State, the submission of the bishops 
 to the Archbishop of Canterbury is a matter of agreement; and it 
 is this voluntary association which brings the bishops and clergy 
 within the reach of the Canons of tiie Church — Otherwise, why 
 should not the acts of one part of the Catholic Church bind another 
 universally? Well; for centuries prei eding the Reformation, that 
 branch of the Church winch was in England, by its own voluntary 
 consent was a part of the Church of Rome, had fully embraced all 
 its doctrines, and acknowledged the Pope as possessing authority 
 over all other bishops ; as now, the Archbishop of Canterbury has 
 supreme spiritual authority in England. There was a general con- 
 sent of this kind through the whole of what was then called the 
 Church. In England when Henry VIII, began his work, a majority 
 of the bishops, and almost the whole body of the inferior clergy 
 
122 Sevieru of Bishop RavenscrofVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 were violently opposed to the measure; and maintained their alle- 
 giance to Rome. Henry assumed the Pope's place as supreme 
 head of the Church in his dominions : Cromwell, (a layman) was 
 his vicegerent, and accomplished in the King's name a considera- 
 ble part of the work of Reformation, such as it was in that day. — 
 At length he who was acknowledged chief hishop, proceeding ac- 
 cording to the Canon law, then submitted to by the Christian world, 
 and with the hearty concurrence of almost all the bishops in the 
 world, excommunicated the bishops of England. And to this day 
 the bishops of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, &c. kc. 
 acknowledge the validity of this sentence of excommunication. On 
 the same principles, then, on which a sentence of excommunication 
 pronounced by the Archbishop of Canterbury on a bishop say of 
 Llandaff would be held valid by the whole body of English, Irish 
 and American Bishops, may the validity of the sentence of the Pope 
 be maintained. 
 
 But our argument here may be made very brief. England was 
 to all intents and purposes a part of the Romish Church. Now 
 that Church was either true or f;ilse. If true; that is, if the 
 Church of Rome really constituted the Church of Christ; then this 
 excommunication, pronounced by the bishop of Rome and his Car- 
 dinals, with the concurrence of almost all the bishops in the world, 
 does seem to be a valid excommunication. But if the Church of 
 Rome was not true, that is no Church of Christ; then what is 
 called the Church of England, being an integral part of this Church, 
 submitting to all its disciphne, and receiving nW its doctrine, cannot 
 be considered a true Church, and of course had no valid orders at 
 the Era of the Reformation. 
 
 This was felt to be a very great difficulty at that time. Some of 
 the very wisest and best men engaged in that work, were satislied 
 that the church of Rome was not a church of Christ. Indeed this 
 is fully declared in the Book of Homilies set forth in the days of 
 Edward VI and Elizabeth, and referred to in the xxxvth article of 
 the Episcopal Church, as containing "a godly and wholesome doc- 
 trine. See "the second part of the Sermon for Whitsunday," — pp. 
 293, 4. American edition, and particularly the following sentence; 
 "Now if you will compare this with the church of Rome, not as it 
 was in the beginning, but as it is at present, and as it hath been for 
 the space of nine hundred years and odd, you shall well perceive 
 the state thereof to be so far wide from the nature of the true 
 church, that nothing can be more." This church was every where 
 the same. Every false doctrine maintained at Rome was received 
 in England ; there was every where, the same corruption of the 
 clergy, the same oppression of the people, the same fierce spirit of 
 cruelty. And what though it was not from the Pope, that the Eng- 
 lish prelates derived their ordination, it was from the church of 
 Rome, fully as corrupt, as alien from the Spirit of Christ, in Eng- 
 land as in Italy. If the church was so far wide from the nature of 
 a true church, that nothing could be more so, the departure was 
 just as great in one country as in another. English ordination up 
 to the time of the Reformation was popish ordination ; and it is 
 not possible for any dissenter to be farther from the true church, 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscrojf s Vindication and Defence. 1 24 
 
 than the HomiHes describe the Romish church to be. And if u 
 false church can give true orders, then a pious presbytery cer- 
 tainly raay, as well as an ungodly bishop. 
 
 But on the other side, most of the Enghsh bishops in the days of 
 Henry, were apprehensive of the canonical power of the Pope. 
 These difficulties led the excellent Cranmerto maintain an opinion, 
 for which, were he under the authority of the bishop of North 
 Carolina, we have no doubt he would be degraded. If bishop Bur- 
 net is to be credited, or rather, if he has not falsified the ecclesias- 
 tical documents of the church, that great reformer, when primate of 
 all England, maintained that ordination or consecration was not 
 necessary to constitute the episcopal character, but that election by 
 christian people, or appointment liy a christian prince is suflicient. 
 Is not this pretty strong evidence that the difficulty which we press 
 on bishop K. was felt in the very beginning of the church of Eng- 
 land ? As for us, we still think, that according to bishop R's prin- 
 ciples, if the Roman Catholic church was a true church, then the 
 Reforming bishops of England were canonically excommunicated ; 
 and if it was not a true church, then the ordination received by the 
 English bishops was not valid. 
 
 A particular case may illustrate our view of this subject on Epis- 
 copal principles. Let us suppose that bishop R. were by common 
 consent made Archbishop of North America, and the canons of the 
 church modified to suit that state of things. Let us farther suppose 
 that some bishop, not for private reasons, but in the sincerity of his 
 heart should be devoted to Bible Societies on the "no comment 
 principle." But before this. Archbishop R. had influence enough 
 to procure the adoption of a canon condemning these societies. 
 Well, the offending bishop is summoned to appear in the Archepis- 
 copal court, to answer for his breach of the law. He refuses to 
 appear ; and is deprived and excommunicated for contumacy — Is 
 he not canonically excommunicated ? 
 
 But since we are called to notice difficulties of this kind, there is 
 another, which bishop R. ought to clear up, when he writes ano- 
 ther book. We have before stated the facts, that in England, the 
 Reformation was not carried on by the Church, but by the civil 
 power. Indeed the whole authority spiritual and temporal was 
 assumed by the King. Bishops were appointed by his letters 
 patent, and commissions were taken out accordingly. If we are not 
 greatly mistaken, in the reign of Henry VllI, these commissions were 
 taken out by the year. It is certain that Cranmer supposed his 
 commissions to have expired with the death of the King who ap- 
 pointed him; and that he refused to act on the accession of Edward 
 V'l, until reappointed. 
 
 When Mary came to the throne, all the bishops who refused to 
 follow the Court in their return to Rome, were deprived, and a new 
 set appointed. In the short reign of this bloody bigot, popery was 
 so firmly seated in the high places of the Church, that, on the ac- 
 cession of Elizabeth, there was only one bishop in England wil- 
 ling to crown her Queen of England. As for the other Clergy, to 
 the number of more than 9000, they were Protestants under Ed- 
 16 
 
124 Meview of Bishop Eavenscrofi^s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 ward, good Catholics under Mary, and Protestants again under Eli- 
 zabeth. 
 
 The articles of Religion too were enacted by Parliament, in op« 
 position to the opinions and exertions of a number of the bishops. — 
 in a word, "the Church of England is really a Parliamentary Church 
 — it depends entirely upon the acts and authority of Parliament for 
 its very essence and frame. The qualifications of its ministers, 
 their power to officiate, the manner in which they are to adminis- 
 ter the sacraments, are all limited and prescribed by Parliament ; 
 and this authority which first made can alone alter and new make it; 
 can abolish or add to its articles or rites according to its pleasure, 
 even though the whole body of bishops and clergy should ever ko 
 much dislike or protest earnestl}' against it." 
 
 Farther yet; so much is the Church the creature of the state, 
 that all the bishops in England, with all their apostolical powers, 
 dare not consecrate a new bishop witliout the authority of the King; 
 nor raise a foreigner to that sacred office without an act of Parlia- 
 ment. Accordingl}', ivhen there was some hesitancy in acknowl- 
 edging the episcopal dignity of good old bishop Seabury of Connec- 
 ticut, and, (that the true succession might be secured in this coun- 
 try,) application was made to the English bishops, it was beyond 
 their power to do any thing until an act of Parliament was passed, 
 giving them a legal capacit}' to comply with this request. 
 
 One is tempted to think that it was poorly worth while to be at 
 all this trouble, when the source of English episcopacy is explored. 
 The whole hierarchy of that Church depends on Archbishop Par- 
 ker. Now it is a very serious question, whether he received ca- 
 nonical consecration or not. The reason of this doubt may be very 
 briefly stated. The persons who consecrated Parker were not 
 bishops at the time of performing the service. The persons who 
 performed this office were Barlow and Scury, bishops elect of Chi- 
 chester and Hereford, Coverdale a deprived bishop of Exeter, and 
 Hodgkins sufiragan of Bedford. On this subject it has been re- 
 marked, that " Elizabeth deprived the bishops whom she found in 
 the Church, and their episcopal character ceased. In like manner 
 had the episcopal character departed from the bishops whom Mary 
 deposed. For if it was right in Elizabeth to put down bishops, and 
 take from them their episcopal character and rights, it could not be 
 wrong in Mary to do precisely the same thing. Was not Mary as 
 much the sovereign of England as Elizabeth? If the latter could 
 deprive bishops, so could the former; and if Mary could deprive, 
 what becomes of Parker's consecration, the root of all episcopacy 
 in England?" 
 
 Parker being in this way raised to the See of Canterbury, pro- 
 ceeded to consecrate fourteen bishops in place of those who had 
 been deprived by queen Elizabeth as supreme head of the Church. 
 Here, then, we see that almost all the bishops of England, though 
 canonically consecrated, were displaced by the civil power, and 
 others put in their stead, by a single bishop whose consecration is 
 seriously questioned. If there is no spiritual power in a layman, 
 or a laywoman, then Parker as Archbishop of Canterbury could 
 deprive almost the entire episcopacy of England, and bring in new 
 
Hetiew of Bishop Ravenscroffs Vindication and Defence, 125 
 
 bishops in compliance with the views of the queen. Is this canon- 
 ical ? Suppose (hat the legislature of North Carolina should make 
 the governor of that state head of the Church; and the governor, 
 in exercise of authority thus conferred, should displace bishop R. 
 and appoint some other person bishop of tlie diocese. In case the 
 bishop of Virginia could be induced to consecrate that other per-' 
 son, would he be rightful bishop of North Carolina; and would 
 this consecration be held to be canonical? We doubt it much. — 
 When one enters minutely into the history of England, and takes 
 into view all the changes, from the extermination of the Church by 
 the invasion of the Saxons, to the reign of his present Majesty 
 George the IV. (defender of the faith !) he must acknowledge that 
 what bishop R. calls apostolical succession has been sadly boxed 
 about, and subjected to many foreign influences. To trace this 
 succession and find evidence that it is true in every case is, the 
 bishop may rely on it, a very perplexing and difficult job. He had 
 belter go to the Bible, and direct others there, than rest his hopes 
 of salvation on so sandy a foundation. 
 
 That difhculties were felt in relation to Archbishop Parker is evi- 
 dent from this fact; that seven or eight years after his consecration, 
 this whole matter was brought before Parliament, and an act was 
 passed confirming its validity, and that of the consecrations per- 
 formed by him. There must have been important reasons for this, 
 or such a body as the British Parliament would hardly have adopted 
 this measure. This was done about 1566 or 1567. 
 
 On looking into this subject, it has occurred to us that the Church 
 of England ought not to be called an Episcopal Church; nor the bi- 
 shops successors of the Apostles. The succession must be in the 
 King and Parliament, where really all the authority is vested. But 
 the King and Parliament are representatives of the nation. It is 
 then something like a great Congregational Church, with the power 
 originally vested in the people, but exercised by the King and Par- 
 liament, who prescribe who shall be bishops, and what the bishops 
 shall do, and how they shall pray. We do hope^that our'good 
 friend of North Carolina has a better warrant for heaven, than he 
 can receive through such a source as this. He had better do at 
 once what we exhort him to do; that is to rely solely on the promi- 
 ses of God for salvation; and instead of claiming to be bishop by 
 divine right, acknowledge that he is superior to his Presbyters by 
 the custom of the Church. 
 
 But in opposition to this, we have the "invincible arguments'' 
 of Mr Law against bishop Hoadley, from page 53 to 60 of this huge 
 pamphlet. The insinuation that our Reviewer borrowed from 
 Hoadley is without foundation. When he gets aid he acknowledges 
 it. Our Reviewer knows something of the general history of the 
 Bangorian controversy, but has never read the works on either 
 side. Does bisliop R. know any thing of them, except what he has 
 learaed from the "Churchman Armed?" 
 
 We readily acknowledge the acuteness and subtlety of Mr. Law's 
 reasoning; but it creates no difficulty with us; because he assumes 
 many things, which he ought to have proved. We can easily see 
 how a prelatist might think these arguments conclusive. He take? 
 for granted the very same premises, which Mr. Law assumes. 
 
126 Reviexv of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vuidicatioii and Defence, 
 
 Tlie argument here borrowed is intended to establish two things. 
 
 1. The absolute necessity of a regular succession of ministers 
 from the days of the Apostles, in such a way as to be capable of 
 proo/, in each particular case. 
 
 2. The existence of a particular order, as alone possessing the 
 ordaining power, and the necessity of a regular succession in that 
 order. 
 
 The force of the whole argument consists in this proposition, 
 that authority from Christ to preach and administer ordinances, can 
 be derived in no way but that of an unbroken succession, in the 
 line of bishops. This we totally deny. For, 
 
 1. We have before shown that bishops as such, that is as distinct 
 from presbyters, were not known in the primitive church; and that, 
 according to Jerome's doctrine, the distinction is founded on the 
 custoin of the church, and not on the law of Christ * There is 
 therefore no necessity of a succession in the line of business. 
 
 2. There is not in the New Testament a hint which warrants 
 the belief that there is any transfer from Minister to Minister, of 
 the authority of Christ. Our Lord sent out the tirst Presbyters 
 with peculiar, that is apostolical powers, and inspired them with 
 his Spirit that they might organize his Church, and commit his doc- 
 trine to writings; but that they transferred any Apostolical powers 
 to their successors, has never yet been proved. We are bold to 
 say, it cannot be proved. The argument of Mr Law assumes that 
 unbroken succession is necessary for the communication of spirit- 
 ual authority, and concludes that therefore this succession has, 
 amidst all changes for 1800 years, actually taken place. We think 
 it a suthcient reply to say, the succession cannot be proved, and 
 theretbre it is not necessary to verify the Church, or give validity 
 to the sacraments. 
 
 The authority to bind the conscience, and to give assurance of Sal- 
 vation, is not in the rninistry of the gospel, but in the word of God, 
 And here we feel authorized to adopt the style of Mr Law, and say, 
 'My Lord, i should think it might be granted to me," that we arc 
 under obligation to believe a preacher of the gospel, solely because 
 he teaches the tvnth which God has revealed ; and that the sacra- 
 ments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, because Christ 
 hath instituted them. "My Lord, it is a plain and obvious truth that 
 no man or number of men" can confer authority on a person to 
 bind the conscience by any thing save the truth as God has made it 
 known. "Then I desire to know how in this present age ; or any 
 other," since the Clergy began to set up undue pretensions, the 
 
 * It is a curious fact, that Hooker, the great champion of Episcopacy, was 
 unable to get over this testimony of Jerome. After exerting his whole 
 strength on this subject, he says (vol. iii. 101.) "This answer to St Jerome 
 seemeth dangerous; 1 have qualified it as 1 may by addition of some words 
 of restraint : yet I satisfy not myself; in my judgment it would be altered." 
 Dr McCrie, in his Life of Melville, suspects that this was a marginal remark 
 made by the author, on reviewing his argument. His answer to the Presby- 
 terians on this point did not satisfy himself. It seemed dangerous — and he 
 purposed to reconstruct this part of the work. But this memorandum, 
 jotted down in the margin, was by the publisher of Hooker's manuscriptj 
 r'norantly introduced into the text," 
 
Meiciew of Bishop Mavenscrojt^s Vindkalion and Befence. 12/ 
 
 imposition of the hands of a bishop can add any thing to the authori- 
 ty of Christ's word, or to the efficacy of his sacraments. " I 
 should think, my Lord," that that which is God's truth when 
 preached by an Episcopalian, is also God's truth when preached by 
 a dissenter. And I do humbly presume to think, my Lord, that 
 there is not such a magic influence in dissenterism, as to change 
 the saving verities of God's word into uncertain tradition or soul de- 
 stroying error. 
 
 The aullwrity to invest men -with the office of teachers is in the 
 Church. And we are happy to agree ivith the great and good 
 Cranmer, so far as to believe that in extraordinary cases, the elec™ 
 tion of a company of faithful men is sufficient to constitute a pres- 
 byter or bishop. And we have no doubt that a man thus appoint- 
 ed, and preaching the truth of God's word, is a true minister of 
 Christ, possessing all the authority which a minister of the gospel 
 can possess. 
 
 But where no case of necessity exists, to justify a departure from 
 the ordinary course, we are perfectly clear that i1 is the rule of 
 Christ's house for men to be invested with the office of religious 
 teacher, by religious teachers, with the concurrence of the people. 
 Not because the religious teacher confers any authority residing 
 solely in himself, or in his order; but because, as we have before 
 shown, this is the surest way to obtain competent religious instruc- 
 tors. We are, then, strong advocates for reguhir ordination. We 
 cannot admit irregular ordinations, in any cases but those of clear 
 necessity. Our reasons, however, are entirely difTerent from those 
 of bishop R. and Mr. Law. Let all take the Bible and judge be- 
 tween us. 
 
 In these quotations from Mr Law's Letters, there is a good deal 
 said, respecting the Priesthood. And much of the force of his ar- 
 gument depends on the assumption that there is a Priesthood in the 
 Church; that is, a body of men appointed by God to bear messages 
 from him directly to the people; and to offer the requests of the 
 people to God. It is also taken for granted, that this is the only 
 ivay in which men can transact business with heaven, fco as to be 
 assured of salvation. If all this were true, we should a;iree at once 
 with these high churchmen, and miike our peace as soon as possible. 
 But it is not necessary for us again to show that there is no Priest- 
 hood in the Church; no such power, as is supposed, given to man; 
 and of course no force at all in the arguments founded on this as- 
 sumption. 
 
 The remarks of the same writer farther on, respecting the suc- 
 cession of bishops as distinct from Presbyters, have been sufficiently 
 answered in another part of this Review, and we shall not go over 
 the same ground again. 
 
 Our Reviewer had said that the founders of the Church of Eng- 
 land did not hold the sentiments respecting the exclusive rights of 
 Episcopacy, which are held by modern high churchmen. On this 
 subject bishop R. uses the following strong language. 
 
 " Presuming, that by the word founders, you mean the reformers of the 
 Church.of England— (its foundation being in the first century and apostoli- 
 cal,) you must be able then to show that the men who gave their bodies to 
 
128 Heview of Bishop EavenseroJVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 tlie flames in behalf of the truth, were double minded men. That the men 
 who declared in the preface to the ordinal " that it is evident unto all men, 
 diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors, that from the Apos- 
 tles' times there have been these orders of ministers in Christ's church, Bish- 
 ops, Priests and Deacons"—" And therefore to the intent that these orders 
 may be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the cliurch, no man 
 shall be accounted or taken to be a lawful Bishop, Piiest or Deacon in this 
 churcli, or be suffered to execute any of the said functions, except he be 
 called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto, according to the form here- 
 after following, or hath had Episcopal consecration or ordiii.tion," did 
 nevertheless consider unintenupted succession from Christ's Apostles, in 
 the line of Bishops— as incapable of proof and unimportant to the validity of 
 the ministerial commissions; and did confess and allow, that persons other- 
 wise than Episcopally ordained, had equally with themselves a divine right 
 to administer the affairs of Christ's kingdom in the world. For this you 
 must do to redeem your pledge and escape the censure justly due to so un- 
 founded an assertion." — pp. 55, 56. 
 
 By founders of the Church of Englantl, we meant not the King 
 and Parliament, but those excellent men, few in number, but of 
 great worth, who, in the reign of Henry Vlll, Edward VI, Mary, 
 and in part of the reign of Elizabeth, promoted the reformation in 
 England. As for the assertion that the Church of England was 
 founded in the first century, and is Apostolical, we shall believe 
 it, when it is proved that queen Elizabeth was successor to the 
 Apostles. 
 
 It is not on personal considerations that we advert to this subject. 
 We wish the Episcopal Church in the present day, to imbibe the 
 spirit of its reformers, of Granmer, and Redley, Hooper and Jewel, 
 and Grindal, and other men of that stamp, who stood forth to stem 
 the torrent of corruption, and who were willing to labor witii their 
 brethren of other names, in the promotion of Christ's kingdom — men, 
 who carried the Reformation as far as they could, and who sat down 
 and wept, when tlie civil authorities check'^d them in their high ca- 
 reer. It would require a volume to slate all the evidence which 
 might be adduced on this subject. The following summary is all 
 that we can find room for. But first we beg leave to remark, that 
 the "Preface to the Ordinal," on which bishop R. relies with so 
 much confidence, does not prove what he supposes. Because, 
 while Episcopalians hold that three orders, bishops, priests, and 
 deacons, have obtained in the Church since the days of the Apos- 
 tles, many of them have held that this was not of divine appoint- 
 ment, but a matter of expediency, and therefore not essential to the 
 being of the Church. This part of the Preface proves that for a 
 man to be acknowledged a Minister in the Church of England, he 
 must be ordained as the ordinal prescribes. But one, we humbly 
 think, may be a Minister in the Chxirch of Christ, and not belong 
 to the Church of England. So also thougiit many of the best men, 
 who have ever graced the Church of England, And that there 
 have been many, who would have been regarded as ornaments of 
 any particular Church, we rejoice to acknowledge. Our prayer to 
 God is, that there may be many more of the same character. 
 
 And we would here ask, whether the Church of Scotland is not 
 acknowledged by the English Parliament, by king, lords, (bishops 
 of course) and commons, as a branch of the Church of Christ; and 
 has not this been the case at any time for 120 years? But m the 
 
Seview of Bishop Ravenserajf s frndicaiion and Defence. l'2i:> 
 
 beginning of the Reformation, and until near the close of the reign 
 of Elizabeth, there was no doubt about the ordination of the foreign 
 Reformed Churches. 
 
 Indeed it is amazing to us, that any can read the history of the 
 Reformation, without every where seeing convincing evidence of 
 the truth of every thing advanced by our Reviewer on this subject. 
 The evidence is of this sort. 
 
 1. A familiar, intimate and affectionate correspondence was car- 
 vied on, between the English and Foreign Reformers, in which there 
 is a free and cordial acUnowledgment on both sides, of brotherhood 
 in the Ministry, and of the Churches respectively, as Churches of 
 Christ. BxirneCs History of the Reformation, his Travels, Strype's 
 Memorials, and Calvin''s Letters, afford decisive evidence of this 
 fact. 
 
 2. There occur repeated instances of the authoritative acknowl- 
 edgment of the ordination of loreign ministers, settling in England ; 
 on some of whom preferments were conferred in the English 
 Church, without re-ordination. 
 
 John Knox who was for some time one of King Edward's chaplains, 
 was employed as a prearher in Enghmd. and had the offer of a 
 bishopric made to him by the privy Council of England, of which 
 Crannier was a member. Strype and Burnet are referred to by the 
 biographer of Knox for evidence. As is also Brand in his history 
 of Newcastle, " In the year 1582, Archbishop Grindal, by a for- 
 mal deed, declared the validity of the orders of Mr John Morrison, 
 who had been ordained by the Synod of Lothian, according to the 
 laudable form and rite of the reformed Church of Scotland." This 
 deed is preserved by Strype in his Life of Grindal, and is quoted 
 by McCrie in the Life of Knox, and by J^eal in his History of the 
 Puritans, i 
 
 Whitfingham, Dean of Durham, was ordained in the English 
 Church at Geneva, of which Knox was Pastor. 
 
 The case of John A'Lasco, a Polish nobleman, who embraced the 
 Reformed religion, became a Minister of the Gospel, and settled 
 in London in the reign of Edward VI, affords a very striking proof. 
 A patent was granted to him by the King, which may he tound in 
 Burnet, but is too long to be inserted here. In this instrument it is 
 acknowledged, that the Church under A'Lhsco's care, though dis- 
 conformed to the practice of the Ctturch of England, was "institu- 
 ted in truly Christian and Apostolical doctrines and riles. But this 
 i.s not all. This Church, set up in London after the pattern of the 
 Reformed Churches on the Continent, was acknov\ ledged and pro- 
 tected by the King and the Archbishop of Canterbury, that by this 
 means the English Churches also might be excited to embrace Jlpos- 
 tolical purity." This leads to the remark, 
 
 3. That the leading English ileformers, in their private senti- 
 ments, agreed with the Reformers of Switzerland and Geneva. 
 
 "Hooper, in a letter dated Feb. 8, 1550. informs Bullinger, that 
 'the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St 
 David's, Lincoln, and Bath, were sincerely bent on advancing the 
 the purity of doctrine, agreeing in all things with the Helvetic 
 Churches: '> Burnet. Hist. Ref. "Parkhurst, bishop of Norwich. 
 
ISO Review of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication and defence. 
 
 in a letter to Gualter, Feb. 4, 1573, fervently exclaims, 'O, would 
 to God, would to God, once at last, all the English people would in 
 good earnest propound to themselves to follow the Church of Zu- 
 rich, as the most absolute pattern.' " Strype. 
 
 Cranmer expressed his opinion formally in writing, that "the 
 bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but 
 both 07te office in the beginning of Christ's religion" — "The bishop 
 of St David's, my lord elect of Westminster, Dr Cox, Dr Redman, 
 say that at the beginning they were all one^ Burnet. "Thir- 
 teen bishops, with a (freat numbi^r of other ecclesiastics, subscribed 
 this propositi'-n, 'that in the New Testament there is no mention 
 made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only deacons or 
 ministers, and of priests or bishops.' " Burnet, as above. "Lati- 
 mer and Hooper maintained the identity of bishops and presbyters, 
 by divine institution. This was also the opinion of Pilkington, 
 bishop ot Durham. Bishop Jewel assents to it in his answer to 
 Harding." 
 
 We have room for no more testimonies. Nothing but ignorance, 
 or inveterate prejudice, can induce any man to deny that the Re- 
 forniers of the (Jliurch in England acknowledged the validity of 
 the Fresbyterial ordination. And had it not been for Elizabeth's 
 love of pomp and show, and her jealousy for the royal prerogative, 
 the Church of England would have borne a very different aspect 
 from that which now it bears.* 
 
 Bishop Ravenscroft seems to think that these are matters con- 
 cerning the faith or order of the Church, or concerning both, which 
 are to be believed, though not found in the Bible. But on this 
 point we think it unnecessary to employ our time. These things, 
 he says, are proved by the very same evidence, which establishes 
 the genuineness of the Scriptures. We may have to remark on 
 this subject here.ifter. We now only ask, what is this, but in ef- 
 fect to put tradition on the same level with the word of God? 
 
 While the bishop is on this point, he, however, continues to drag 
 in another which has no sort of connexion with it; — for what rea- 
 son, let otheis judge. Thus he expresses himself, 
 
 * It might have been mentioned tliat the book caUed the Erudition of a 
 Christian J1a7i, otlicrwise called the King's Book, and the Bishop's Book, 
 published in 1543, distinctly states, that in the New Testament, there are 
 only two orders ot Christian Ministers, priests and deacons. We beg leave 
 to add on • other testimony, of later days. The gre vt and good Archbishop 
 Usher says, "1 think that churches that liave nn bisttops are defective in 
 their government, yet, for the justifying my communion with them, (which 
 I do love and honor as true members of the Universal Church) 1 do profess 
 if I were in Holland, I should receive the blessed sacrament at the hands of 
 the Dutch, with the like affection as I stiould from the hands of the French 
 Ministers at Chare. ilon. And m his answer to Baxter, he says, "that the 
 King havinsr asked him at the Isle of Wight, whether he found in antiquity, 
 that rrenbyters alone ordained any? he replied yes; and that he could 
 show his Majesty more, even wheue ruESDYXEiis alone scccessivelt oh- 
 PAiNED bishops; and instanced in Jerome's words, of the I'resbyters of Al- 
 exandria choosing and making their own bishops from the days of Mark, till 
 Heraclas and Uionysius." Had bishop R. known all that learned Episcopa- 
 lians have written, would he have pledged himself to surrender his cause, 
 if we could point out a single instance of acknowledged Presbyterian ordi- 
 nation in 1500 years ?— We cannot help remarking that if all bishops were 
 like Usher, there would be no controversy between them and Presbyte- 
 rians. 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vimlicalion and Defence. 131 
 
 " Hence (as you well know) the hasty conclusion of most of your read- 
 era, if it is not in the Bible, it need not be believed, and thus the whole sub- 
 ject is dismissed from the attention, and the mind pre-occupied against just 
 information. Yet I would humbly suggest, that tlie wonder-working system 
 of Hermeneutics, which can draw from the Bible, the doctrines of particu- 
 lar redemption, of predestination to eternal life of a part, and to eternal 
 death to the rest of mankind, by the most merciful God, without respect or 
 foresight of any good or evil by them done; might find in that same Bible, 
 at least equal support for an uninterrupted succession from Christ, tlirough 
 his Apostles — to give validity and eflect too, to sacraments, as seals of the 
 grace of the gospel." — p. 56. 
 
 On this difficult subject, we have no intention of entering here. 
 The pages of our work have already contained a vindication of the 
 doctrine as held by Presbyterians. And we vvould hnmbly recom- 
 mend to bishop R. a careful perusal of the "Letters on the Divine 
 Purpose," with which a valued correspondent not long ago favored 
 the readers of the Magazine. Our publisher has printed them in a 
 separate form, and they vaAy easily be procured. 
 
 But we cannot help remarking that language of this sort comes with 
 a very bad grace from an Episcopalian. It brings to mind the saying 
 of the great Chatham, of which, perhaps, bishop R. never heard: 
 *'The Church of England," said he, "has a Popish Liturgy, Calvinis- 
 tic Articles, and an Arminian Clergy." That the second part of this 
 pithy sentence is true, has been often proved. An English Clergy- 
 man has filled a large octavo volume with proofs of the doctrinal 
 Calvinism of his Church. But these articles speak for themselves. 
 On the distinguishing points of this great controversy, they are so 
 clear and decisive, that we have never known a Presbyterian who 
 would hesitate subscribing to them. Indeed the very doctrine of 
 the seventeenth article is found in the writings of Calvin. And the 
 "latter part of the final clause of this article, so frequently appealed 
 to as deciding the Anticalvinistic sense of that article, is a literal 
 translation from Calvin's Institutes." Vide Inst. i. 17. 5. See 
 Christian Observer, for April 182G. pa. 225. We shall give the 
 words of Calvin and of the article referred to. 
 
 And in our doings, that will of God is I Proinde in rebus agendis ea est nobis 
 to be followed, which we have ex- | perspicienda Dei voluntas, quam ver- 
 pressly declared unto us in the word I bo suo declarat. 
 of God. Article xvii. j Calvin, i. 17. 5. 
 
 Calvin's book, it ought to be known, was published some time 
 before the xxxix articles were drwan up. The first edition of 
 this great work was printed in 1535, the last under Calvin's super- 
 intendence in 1561. It deserves especial notice, that in the Bull of 
 pope Pius the 5th, by which Q,ueen Elizabeth was deposed and ex- 
 communicated, one of the charges alleged against her was, "that 
 the impious mysteries and Institutes according to Cnlvin are received 
 and observed by herself, and even enjoined on all her subjects to 
 be obeyed." Impia mysteria et Instituta ad Calvinum praescrip- 
 tum a se suscepta et observata, etiam a substitis servari mandavit." 
 (See the whole paper in Burnett.) Indeed they who are versed in 
 the English ecclesiastical history of the age, and are familiar with 
 the standard writers of that time, know that the Institutes of Calvin 
 •formed the text book of students in Divinity: that the bishops re- 
 17 
 
132 Meview of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication and JJefence. 
 
 quired young men, ut pane ad verbum cdiscant, to learn them al- 
 most to a word; that, beins; accurately translated into English, they 
 should be kept in all the Churches for public use; that the preach- 
 ers habitually referred to them in their popular strmons, and, in a 
 word, as Hooker says, that they who were best acquainted with 
 the writings of Calvin, were esteemed the most learned divines. 
 Since writing the above, we have fallen in with, 
 
 The following passage in the Christian Observer, vol. ii. 142, 
 143. It gives a summary of the facts above stated. "Few names 
 stand higher, or in a more deserved pre-eminence, amongst the wise 
 and pious members of the English Church, tlian that of bishop An- 
 drews. His testimony to the memory of Calvin is, that 'he was 
 an illustrious person, and never to be mentioned without a preface 
 of the highest honor.' Whoever examines the sermons, writings, 
 &c. of our divines, in the reigns of Elizabeth and James 1., will con- 
 tinually meet ivith epithets of honor with which his name is men- 
 tioned; the learned, the zvise, the judicious, the pious Calvin, are 
 expressions every where to be found in the remains of those times. 
 It is well known that his Institutes were read and studied in the 
 Universities, by every student in Divinity, for a considerable por- 
 tion'^of a century; nay, that, by a convocation held at Oxford, that 
 book was recommended to the general study of the nation. So far 
 Vfas the Church of England, and her chief flivines, from countenan- 
 cing that unbecoming and absurd treatment, with which the name 
 of this eminent Protestant is now so frequently dishonored, that it 
 would be no difficult matter to prove, that there is not a parallel in- 
 stance upon record, of any single individual being equally and so un- 
 equivocally venerated, for the union of wisdom and piety, both in 
 England, and by a large body of the foreign Churches, as John 
 Calvin. Nothing but ignorance of the ecclesiastical records of those 
 times, or resolute prejudice, could cast a cloak of concealment over 
 this fact; it has been evidenced by the combined testimony both of 
 enemies and friends to his system of doctrines." This is Episcopal 
 testimony, and therefore we have given it at length. The change 
 which took place was produced more by the republican sentiments 
 of the Genevan school, than by any conviction that the doctrine of 
 Calvin was false. 
 
 In closing this part of our Review, we are borne on by our feel- 
 ings to make a few additional remarks. We are Presbyterians on 
 conviction. We are persuaded that the order of that church is 
 truly Apostolical ; that its doctrines are scriptural ; that its disci- 
 pline is wholesome; that its polity is favorable to political and reli« 
 gious liberty; and that its influence on the whole frame of society 
 is beneticial. But we are as sure as we can be of any such thing, 
 that true religion is not connected with any particular form of ec- 
 clesiastical polity; that the church does not depend on any particu- 
 lar order of the Ministry; and that preachers of the gospel derive 
 no authority directly from Christ, which gives validity to their min- 
 istrations. We are convinced that the contrary opinions are hurt- 
 ful; that they are adverse to true piety; destroy genuine Christian 
 benevolence; and injure the general interests of religion. These 
 are our motives for the course we have pursued. We have 
 
Reviexv of Bishop Ravenscroft^s Vindication and Defmct 13; 
 
 never had, if we know our own hearts, the least degree of mv 
 fraternal feeling towards a human being for being an Episcopalian. 
 But we cannot bear intolerance. Arrogance, and exclusive pre- 
 tensions are objects of our "implacable disgust." — And we do 
 mean, while life lasts, to bear our humble part in putting them 
 down. The interests of " pure and undefiled religion" in our 
 country demand this service of us, and of all who love the cause of 
 truth and righteousness. We wish our episcopal brethren to be as 
 fully convinced of this as we are. Let them labor to promote re- 
 ligion, and they have our love and our prayers. But as flir as they 
 manifest a sectarian spirit, endeavor to make proselytes to narrow 
 and bigoted opinions, and set themselves up as exclusively mem- 
 bers of the true church, and their ministers as vicars of Christ, so 
 far Vie must oppose them — not in anger, but for the sake of truth 
 and charity. 
 
 THE BIBLE SOCIETV. 
 
 The Bible Society question next claims our attention, in the or- 
 der of subjects treated by bishop Ravenscroft. And we are truly 
 sorry to observe that he waxes warmer and warmer as he advances. 
 We shall, however, pursue our course, noticing just such things as 
 the cause of truth requires that we should animadvert on, and pass- 
 ing by the rest in silence. 
 
 In this discussion, it is very important that the true character of 
 the Bible Society should be understood; and the real state of the 
 question between the contending parlies fairly exhibited, 
 
 1, As to the real character of tiie Bible Society, — This seems to 
 have been sadly misunderstood by many of its opponents. We beg 
 our readers, then, distinctly to bear in mind, that the Bible Society 
 is not a Church, it assumes no ecclesiastical authority; it imposes 
 no decisions on its members; it assumes no one attribute of a Church 
 of the Lord Jesus. It is nothing more nor less than a Company, 
 formed for the purpose of collecting and distributing money, in the 
 way of charity. And as this association assumes no ecclesiastical 
 character, so it interferes in none of its transactions with the opera- 
 tions of any of the Churches in Christendom. The object of the 
 Society, is indeed, the same with that of every true Church of 
 Christ, namely, the promotion of the Christian religion. But the 
 church and the society move in entirely diflerent spheres; so that 
 there can be no collision, unless the church should go out of her 
 proper course, to oppose the Bible Society. Every Protestant 
 church in the world professes to derive its religion from the Bible; 
 and in promoting what is believed to be the true religion of Christ, 
 every church acknowledges its obligation to distribute the Bible as 
 an important part of the means appointed by God for the salvation 
 of sinners. But the Bible Society undertakes just this — It says to 
 Episcopalians, Presbyterians, kc. &c. we mean to do our endeavor, 
 whithersoever you may send missionaries, with Prayer Books, Con- 
 fessions of Faith, Catechisms, kc. to place there a sufficient num- 
 ber of Bibles : so that whatever means you might have expended 
 in this part of your work, you may reserve for other purposes. — 
 We Tvil! give the Bible: you may do the rest. But our work is 
 
134 Ucvkii) of BisJiop Iiavenscrflft*s Vmdicaiiou and Bejencc, 
 
 one of assistance, and not of interference: We therefore give no- 
 thing but the Bible. 
 
 There are, however, other reasons for this last determination. The 
 Bible contains an expression of the whole will ofGod respecting man's 
 salvation. All necessary truth is clearly revealed. The members 
 of this association do then regard it as a work of benevolence to 
 distribute the Bible. But there are hundreds of millions of human 
 beings, who have no Bible, and know nothingof its life-giving truths. 
 Now, allowing one Bible for six souls, and making due allowances 
 for the increase of {)opulation, and the des-truction of books, the an- 
 nua! ilistribution of one hundred and twenty thousand Bibles, would 
 not supply the world with the word of God in fewer than a thou- 
 sand years. And within that period the entire population of the 
 world will have changed about thirty times, or nearly twenty thou- 
 sand millions of souls will have gone to eternity. This work of 
 charity, then, calls for the union of all hearts and the co-operation 
 of all hands. But the christian world is divided into a number of 
 denominations, who differ as to their explanations of some parts of 
 scripture; and of course they would choose different commentators 
 for the exposition of scripture. The enterprise of supplying the 
 world with the Bible demands greater resources than any christian 
 denomination can command. A plan suited to the emergency of the 
 case must be devised. A company is formed for this particular 
 work of charity, on a principle to which it was supposed that no 
 Protestant could possibly object. The Bible is given — the Bible 
 alone, "without note or comment," just as God gave it to man. 
 This, then, is the real character of the Bible Society. It is a cha- 
 ritable association forgiving away the Bible, or furnishing it at a 
 cheap rate; formed precisely on the principle of a society for fur- 
 nishing bread to the poor in a time of scarcity; or a sotip society, or 
 any other charitable association. 
 
 2. £s to the state of the question betm^een the friends and enemies 
 of this society. — It is difficult to exhibit this fairly and fully in (ew 
 words. The friends of the society maintain that their intentions 
 are benevolent, and the effects of their labors salutary. Enemies 
 deny this of course. Bui this enmity takes so many different shapes, 
 and attempts to justify itself by so many various and opposite rea- 
 sons, that we are here obliged to enter a little into detail. Our plan 
 will be to give a list of characters, and a very brief statement of 
 their respective grounds of enmity. 
 
 1. Infidels of all classes among Christians. — Our readers will 
 readily understand that the true reason of their hostility is hatred of 
 (he Bible. Their ostensible reasons are the same with those of 
 some other enemies. 
 
 2. Political Enemies. These are of two classes, directly op- 
 posed to each other. 
 
 A. Monarchists or Friends of Arbitrary Govermnent. These 
 oppose the Bible Society, because, say they, the Bible puts 
 wrong notions into the heads of people respecting liberty, and 
 the natural equality of man. It unfits them for due subordina- 
 tion, and brings them together to plot and cabal against the go- 
 vernment. They maintain that the Bible Society is a branch 
 
lleview of Bishop Ravcnscrojt^s Vindication and Defence. 135 
 
 of the famous Illuminati-systcin, which once made such noise in 
 the world! 
 B. Radicals, or Enemies of all government. These are noisy, 
 roaring felloivs, who say, and swear, that (he Bible Society is 
 a tool of the Holy Alliance; intended expressly to promote su- 
 perstition, and train men for slavery, it is a little unfortunate 
 for these men that the head of the Holy Alliance has suppr essed 
 the Bible Society in his dominions. 
 
 3. Mahometans. These poor fellows are enemies because they 
 liave been excited by Roman Catholics to such hostility as they have 
 expressed. 
 
 4. Papists. The enemies of this class assign in part the same 
 reasons with those who follow next in order. 
 
 5. High Churchmen among Protestants. The opposition to the 
 Bible Society began with this class in England. 
 
 A. It was first objected that the Society was dangerous to the 
 church, 
 
 B. That it was injurious to the Society for promoting Christian 
 knowledge. 
 
 C. That it would destroy the English power in Hindostan. 
 
 D. That it would overthrow the establishment, because the Bi- 
 "ble was given without the Prayer Book. 
 
 E. That it (ended to the overthrow of all revealed religion. 
 This last is one of the objections wliich has found its way into 
 this country. 
 
 6. MiscELLANnous Enemies. We adopt this odd title, because 
 we do not know what other to use. These enemies consist of Uni- 
 tarian Qua/cers; Reformed Baptists; a set of people who call them.- 
 selves Goats, and other nondescripts, whom we know not how to de- 
 signate. 
 
 An advocate of the Bible Society, then, is surrounded by hosts of 
 enemies; and seems to need the eyes of an Argus, and the hands 
 of a Briareiis to maintain his cause. But the comfort is, that most 
 of these adversaries are directly opposed to each other; and may 
 be left to fight it out among themselves. And of the rest, it may 
 safely be assumed, that they take the same positions, adopt the sam<» 
 manoeuvres, and use the same weapons — so that if one set of their 
 is defeated, the whole are completely put to the rout. 
 
 In regard to bishop Ravenscroft; if all his personalities, his as- 
 sertions without proof, his repetitions, were omitted, this part of his 
 pamphlet would be well nigh reduced to nothing. It would be easy 
 to take all his general principles, and despatch them in a few pages. 
 But in urging and repeating these principles, he brings forward so 
 many opinions, which we think both erroneous and dangerous, that 
 we feel compelled to follow him step by step through his unplea- 
 sant course. We promise, however, to condense our remarks as 
 much as circumstances will permit. 
 
 Every thing at all relevant to this subject, as it is handled by 
 bishop R. may, if we have not mistaken him, be comprised in the 
 following particulars. 
 
 1. That according to the Bible Society principle, the scriptures 
 are in such sort sufficient, that notes and comroents are unneces- 
 
13S Review of Bishop Kavenseroft's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 sary; that there is no danger of men being mistaken or misled with- 
 «ut them, &c. &c. 
 
 2. That this principle, contrary to the express will of God, sepa- 
 rates the scriptures, from the church, ministry, and sacraments, 
 which are "integral [)arts" of the plan of salvation. 
 
 3. That it encourages schism and heresy, by declaring that all 
 systems of religious belief derived from the Bible are "equally safe 
 for salvation;" and maintaining that all are equally entitled to the 
 witness of the Spirit. 
 
 4. As a conclusion from all this, — That the principle is subver- 
 sive of revealed religion. 
 
 5. Hence it is inferred, that the fi-iends of the Bible Society are ac- 
 tuated by mistaken and intemperate zeal, and not by genuine chari- 
 ty: and that they who are sufficiently cool and perspicacious to see 
 through all these delusions, are bound to set themselves in open op- 
 position to this novel scheme of a spurious and deceptious libe- 
 rality. 
 
 We shall consider these particulars in order, and as we go on. 
 notice some other matters which the bishop's peculiar mariner for- 
 ces on our attention. 
 
 This part of his Vindication fills nearly thirty octavo pages. Yet 
 after his statement, pp. 77 — 79, we find scarcely a new, we mean an 
 addition'al idea, in all that he says. It is a ringing of changes pro- 
 ductive to the Reviewer of extreme weariness; and an intermixture 
 of invectivesand coarse personalities, which every one concerned 
 for the honor of the christian religion, and the credit of the chris- 
 tian ministry must deeply lament. That our readers may have at 
 once, nearly the whole of the bishop's scheme, and some sample of 
 his spirit, we give the following very long extract. 
 
 "Notes and comments on any book, are always intended to explain and 
 render more intelligible, and of course more practically useful, the subject 
 matter contained in the book. This is the declared object of those who com- 
 pile them; and the benefit is acknowledged by all who read them. The 
 exclusion of notes and comments then, is in effect to say, that the book re- 
 quires no explanation — that it is sufficiently intelligible in itself. This being 
 true of books in general, it must also be true of the Bible as a particular 
 book, unless it be shewn that it is an exception to the rule. But the com- 
 mon sense and common usage of the christian world proves, that it is not an 
 exception, tliere being no book in the woi-ld, upon the explanation and il- 
 lustration of which, so much labor and research have been bestowed. The 
 adoption of a principle, therefore, which excludes notes and comments from 
 the Bible, does in fact assert, that the Bible requires no extraneous help to 
 understand \t aright, and, (^as it is assumed in the Sermon,) that it is exclu- 
 sively sufficient for its own interpretation. 1 have therefore done no vio- 
 lence or injustice to the Bible Society principle, in holding it responsible 
 for this most just apd direct conclusion from it. But further, as I have done 
 no violence or injustice to the principle adopted and acted upon b\ these 
 Bible Societies, so neitlier have I drawn from it a single consequence, that 
 is not equally direct and unavoidable. For, if the B ble is in itself so clear 
 and plain as to require neither notes or comments to render it "more intelli- 
 gible, it follows inseparably, in the judgment of the Bide Society, as a body, 
 that there is no dangr-r ti any man of iiistaking its meaning, or misapplying 
 its truths. But the Bible Society, as a body, are aware of the fact (and the 
 very .materials of which it is composed coifirra the fact to their senses,) that 
 the christian world is split up and divided into hundreds of opposite systems 
 of doctrine and practice, all professedly drawn from the Bible, as its exclu- 
 
Mei)iew of Bishop Raveuseroft's Vindication and Defence* 1ST 
 
 sive truth. Hence, it is the opinion of that body, witnessed by the adoption 
 of the principle as their fundamental rule, that all these various and oppo- 
 sing systems of religious profession, are equally consistent with the truth of 
 God's word, and equally safe for salvation. Nor is there an escape from this 
 consequence, that will not show, that the favonte principle is wrohg, and 
 ought to be abandoned. For, of necessity, the S.iciety must either believe 
 that all varieties of religious profession drawn froni the Bible, are equally right, 
 in the sense ot b^ing equ illy safe, or tht-y lUst be lev that s >me )f them are 
 unscri|)tnral aiid unsife. If iheform.'r of t se alternatives is adapted, the prin- 
 ciple is dt-nionstrated to be productive of divisions in reli.uton without limit. 
 If the latter shall be resorted to, it shows tht prinriple to be justly liable to 
 the charge of withholding from the Bible what is essential to a right under- 
 standing of lis contents, and to a just application of its life-giving truths. 
 
 That such conclusions and consequences are not seen by the individual 
 members, 1 am well aware ; that they are hid and concealed from them, by 
 the intrinsic merit of the work, and the enthusiasm it so powerfully kindles, 
 I can readily conceive ; yet that they are unavoidable from the principle, is 
 beyond all reasonable denial, and it is for this reason, and this alone, that I 
 have raised my voice against it, and not without taking Into consideration 
 how much more probable it vas, tnat 1 was mistaken — than that thousands 
 of great and learned and pious mi-n should he guilty of such an oversight, as 
 to adopt for the foundation of the most ext-nded religious co-operation, a 
 principle, demonstrably subversive of all revealed ReUgion. 
 
 But the Bible Society principle operates yet more extensively, and more 
 certainly, against the interests of reveal, d Religion, than in the exclusion of 
 all helps to understand and apply the scriptures according to their true 
 meaning, and to their saving purpose ; for it auihorises the conclusion, that 
 the sacraments are not necessary to give effect to the word of God. All 
 comments are excluded. Preaching and the sacraments are, in the truest 
 sense of the word, comments on the scriptures — comments which God has 
 commanded to accompany them; yet, by this principle, these are separated 
 from the Bible, not only by fair and necessary inference from the principle 
 as adopted, but practically and in fact. This consequence from the Bible 
 Society principle, was stated in the Sermon, and pressed as an argument 
 against it. But of this you have taken no notice, beyond giving the para- 
 graph in which it is found, and resorting to your ready scape-goat, the book 
 of Common Prayer, as what I mean by the church, the ministry and the sa- 
 craments. But, sir, you knew belter. You knew well what my real mean- 
 ing was in this objection, and you felt that it was fatal; and yet the princi- 
 pie which goes this length must be supported. 
 
 Against this objection, I have heard many, and read some answers; but 
 not one that to my mind was even plausible. It is admitted on all hands, 
 that a proposition to send the sacraments with the word, would be the signal 
 to dissolve the society. It is confessed, that no such thing is contemplated 
 by the society. By some it is replied, that the sacraments are already fur- 
 nished. But even admitting this, as it respects christian lands — (though the 
 society are not entitled to it) yet it is not inte, as respects the heathen, who 
 are embraced in the operations of the society. I'he principle, as to them, 
 is an actual separation of the sacraments from the word of God ; and its ope- 
 ration in christian lands, is to weaken the impression of their indispensable 
 necessity to give the word its saving effect. It is in vain to contend, that 
 the society is associated for a specific purpose, which does not embrace the 
 sending the sacraments with the word-— because no necessity can be con- 
 ceived for their separation — because no christian can comprehend any sav- 
 ing benefit from the mere letter of scripture, without the sacraments — be- 
 cause no necessity exised for the adoption of a principle thug pregnant 
 ivith mischief. If it was felt to be a christian duty to disseminate as widely 
 as possible the word of life, the duty was equally christian, and equally im- 
 perious—not to deprive the word of those accompaniments which the wis- 
 dom of God had joined inseparably with it, as essential to its saving effect. 
 I cannot perceive any just ground for the exercise of discretion even in this 
 case, particularly as respects the heathen— and far less of justification for 
 *hc adoption of this principle as their bond of union, and the best method 
 
1S8 Review of Bishop KavenscroJt*s Vindication and Defence, 
 
 which their collective wisdom and piety could devise, for presenting to all 
 nations, the -whole counsel of God for their salvation." — pp. 77 — 79. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the several particulars abore stated, 
 in their order. And 
 
 I. As to Nutci and Comments — and the sufficiency of the Scrip- 
 iures. 
 
 On this point, bishop R. maintains, with a confidence perfectl}^ 
 sui generis, that according to the Bible Society principle, notes and 
 conjments are unnecess;iry. There is an ambiguity in the words 
 necessary and unnecessary, which, as the bishop has not noticed it, 
 we must explain. A thing is said to be necessary in common speech, 
 when we cannot do well without it. Thus a particular kind of food 
 is said to be a necessary of life, when every one knows that it is 
 possible to prolong life in the use of something else. One thing is 
 absolutely necessary to another, when that other cannot be accom- 
 plished or attained without it. In this sense, notes and comments 
 may be affirmed or denied to be necessary for a right understanding 
 of the scriptures, according to the limitations given to the phrase, 
 [a right understanding of the scriptures.] If it means an under- 
 standing of the difficult parts of scripture, neither the Bible Society, 
 nor any man of common sense on the face of the earth ever denied 
 the necessity of notes and comments. But if it means an under- 
 standing of the plain, obvious, fundamental truths of scripture, which 
 show men the way of salvation, the Bible Society principle does as- 
 sume that notes and comments are unnecessary. — Once more; if 
 the word necessary is used in the loose, familiar sense of useful, ex- 
 pedient, 4'c. the Bible Society does by no means deny the necessity 
 of notes and comments. It says not a single word in relation to them 
 in this meaning. 
 
 The intelligent reader of the quotation made above, will readily 
 perceive, that the writer had in view none of these distinctions; 
 otherwise, he could not so entirely have mistaken the Bible Society 
 principle, as to have expressed himself thus: >'But further, as I 
 have done no violence or injustice to the principle adopted and acted 
 upon by these Bible Societies, so neither have I drawn from it a 
 single consequence that is not equally direct and unavoidable. For 
 if the Bible is in itself so clear and plain as to require neither notes 
 or comments to render it more intelligible, it follows inseparably, 
 in the judgment of the Bible Society, as a body, that there is no 
 danger to any man of mistaking its meaning, or misapplying its 
 truths." Here is a remarkable instance of that unsatisfactory me- 
 thod of reasoning, which puts into one's premises, positions which 
 his antagonist denies, and deriving from them conclusions which he 
 never can admit. Bishop R. might reason until doomsday, and ne- 
 ver convmce a friend of the Bible Society by logic like this. When 
 measures of this kind are resorted to for the purpose of gaining an ad- 
 vantage, it is treating them very mildly to call them unfair. We will 
 not say, that when bishop R. ascribed principles to the Bible Society, 
 which they do not hold, that he knew better. We can account for 
 his bad reasoning very satisfactorily to ourselves, on the supposi- 
 tion that he did not know any better; and we had rather believe that 
 lie was in ignorance and error, than that he knowingly misstated the 
 
Keview of Bishop UavenscrojVs Vindication and Defence. ISt) 
 
 principle which he opposed. The bishop is not infallible: he does 
 aot pretend to it — he will therefore bear wiih us, if we impute te 
 bad reasoning, what more violent men are accustomed to impute to 
 bad faith. Sir, 7jou knew no better. But indeed, sir, it never en- 
 tered into the mind of the Bible Society, that the scripture requires 
 neither notes nor comments to make it more intelligible: not one of 
 its members ever dreamed, we dare say, that there is no danger to 
 any man of mistaking its meaning. The Bible Society is a company 
 formed for the distribution of the scriptures alone. This supposes 
 neither more nor less than this, that it is an advantage to a man to 
 possess the Bible, if he has no other means of religious instruction. 
 And this is the proposition which the enemy of the Bible Society 
 ought to set himself to prove, viz. You do an injury by giving the 
 Bible, without giving also other means of obtaining salvation. But 
 we have seen no one calling himself a christian, who is prepared to 
 meet the position in this plain and direct form. 
 
 The utter weakness and injustice of this allegation against the 
 Bible Society may be shewn by a case which involves no prejudice 
 or party spirit. Suppose that there should occur within the diocese 
 of North Carolina a time of extreme scarcity. The wealthy peo- 
 ple of that respectable state, of all denominations — for charity is 
 not exclusive — would probably unite in an association to relieve the 
 distress, and prevent the poor from starvation. Suppose farther, 
 that the projectors of this benevolent enterprise, considering the 
 extent of the misery to be relieved, and their limited resources, 
 should resolve that the society would undertake to furnish the suf- 
 fering poor with nothing but bread, what would be thought of him 
 who should rail at this association, and endeavor to bring odium on 
 it, by charging it as a body, with holding the opinion that the poor 
 ought to have neither meat nor salt with their bread? Suppose still 
 farther, that it were known as far as the respectable state of North 
 Carolina is known, that the members of this great benevolent society 
 were united in other smaller societies, of different names, but yet 
 for the express purpose of affording other aliment besides bread, 
 and that they were equally zealous in this work of benevolence as 
 in the other, giving salt, and meat, and vegetables, &c. as they could, 
 what would every body think of the sanity of that man, who, in the 
 face of plain facts, and repeated denials, and in the very teeth of 
 common sense, would persist in the declaration, "You associate on- 
 ly for the purpose of giving bread to the poor; and as a body you 
 maintain that they ought to have nothing else" — But, my dear sir, 
 we do give them meat as we can — "I don't care what your private 
 sentiments are, or what your practice is; as a society, you declare 
 that the poor can thrive and labor just as well with bread alone, as 
 with bread, salt, meat and vegetables." — Precisely such, as it ap- 
 pears to us, is the wonderful mistake, and the equally wonderful 
 pertinacity and confidence of bishop R. in relation to the principle 
 of the Bible Society. Yet so is he blinded by party feelings, as to 
 know no better — and so are many others blinded as to think this ar- 
 gument "unanswerable." — How often must it be repeated, that the 
 Bible Society principle assumes nothing but that it is a good work 
 to furnish the whole human family with the Bible? 
 18 
 
146 Jleriew of Bishop Ra'cciiscrqft*s Vindicaiiou and Mejeucc. 
 
 This assumption does, indeed, imply the sufficiency of the 
 icriptures. Let us, therefore, hear bishop Kavenscroft on this sub- 
 ject. 
 
 But here again he writes with marvellous obscurity; which ren- 
 ders it extremely difficult to understand precisely wliat his settled 
 opinions are. In the extract made above, the Bible Society is 
 charged with holding -'that the Bible requires no extraneous helps 
 to understand it aright, and that it is exclusively sufficient for its own 
 interpretation." At page 85, the charge is, that "the Bible Socie- 
 ty principle asserts the sufficiency of the scriptures for salvation, 
 without the church, the ministry, and the sacraments." 
 
 And in another place, he right curiously explains to us what he 
 means by the sufficiency ofthe Scriptures. As this is a very strik- 
 ing and peculiarly characteristic passage, we are afraid to abridge 
 it, lest we should unintentionally raistate its meaning. Our read- 
 ers must have the opportunity of judging for themselves. 
 
 *But, "we maintain the sufFiciency of the scriptures," unquestionablyj 
 and even their exclusive sufficiency — wliich is the error charged to the "no 
 comment" principle, and you are drawn out to defend. But their suffi- 
 ciency to what ? To the " efficient communication of spiritual instruction 
 *' without the ordinances ofthe church?" If this is your meaning, as it 
 certainly is of the "no comment" principle, I consider it subversive of all 
 revealed religion, being plainly contrary to the word of God. — If it is not 
 your meaning, as I believe it is not, you ought to have been more explicit.— 
 Neither yourself, nor any other, maintains more absolutely than I do, the 
 sufficiency of Scripture; but it is their sufficiency to make them "wise un- 
 to salvation," not to save them. It is their sufficiency to direct men what 
 they must do to be saved. It is their sufficiency, as an infallible rule of 
 faith and manners, when truly interpreted and followed. It is their suffi- 
 ciency, to direct and bring sinners to Christ for life and salvation, in the 
 external appointments of the church, the ministry and tlie sacrameuts— and 
 not their sufficiency, as a substitute for these integral parts in the plan of 
 salvation. 
 
 'But while I maintain their full sufficiency for all these purposes, I also 
 maintain that they are not in such wise sufficient, tliat men cannot be mista- 
 ken or misled, in drawing from ihem their true meaning. — I therefore as- 
 sert, against the "no comment" principle, the lUiliti/ and the necessiti/, oi' 
 explanations, illustrations, expositions, enforcements of their sense, by notes 
 and comments, not only in the literary meaning of these words, but in the 
 higher, equally just and more profitable application of them to the ordinan- 
 ces of the Gospel, as alone giving life and power, and assurance to the 
 word. This is the sense, and the only sense, in which tlie Scriptures are 
 considered unsufficient to their own interpretation, by either the Bishop of 
 Limerick, or the Bishop of North Carolina.* — pp. 88, 89. 
 
 As to the first sentences in this extract, we can only say, Davus 
 non (Edipus — we have no skill in solving enigmas, or interpreting 
 mysterious, oracular sentences ; and we much doubt whether we 
 could make out the meaning here, even if we had old Fincentius 
 Lirinensisio help us. But that we may come to the truth in regard 
 to this important subject, let us try to get at the precise meaning of 
 the word sufficiency. It implies the idea of suitableness or adap- 
 tation to a purpose ; and when appropriated, as it generally is to 
 means, or causes, it signifies their adequateness to accomplish the 
 end in view. The force ofthe term, in correct language, is never 
 carried farther. A sufficient cause, in physics, is a cause which 
 accounts for the phenomena; a sufficient argument, in logic, is one 
 
Jismexv of Bishop Ravenscrofl's Vindicalion and JOefence* 14 i 
 
 which proves the truth. When the Bible Society principle, then, 
 assumes, as we admit tliat it does, the sufficiency of the Scriptures; 
 it of course assumes their suflicienc}', their adequateness to accom 
 plish the purpose for which they are distributed. What is this 
 purpose? The constitution of no Bible Society that we have evej 
 seen, gives an answer to this question. That noble institution, the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, simply states, that " the sole 
 object shall be, to encourage a wider circulation of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, without note or comment" — and says not a single word as to 
 the design. As far as our recollection serves us, this example has 
 been followed by all other Societies of any importance throughout 
 the world. But it would be monstrous to suppose that so many 
 associations have been formed without some purpose to be accom- 
 plished by the distribution of the Bible. Well, what was it? Lei 
 us suppose that the members, or if the bishop prefers the phrase, 
 that the Society as a body, believed that the Scriptures are suffi- 
 cient "to make men wise unto salvation;" sufficient "to direct 
 men what they must do to be saved;" and for this purpose engaged 
 in the distribution of the Bible; why should bishop R. condema 
 and oppose them? Is it not a work of christian love; of true be- 
 nevolence, to "direct men what they must do to be saved?" Our 
 furious antibiblist, as "absolutely as any one can do, maintains the 
 sufficiency of the Scriptures" for this purpose. How then, ac- 
 cording to his own opinions, can he be justified in his unexpected, 
 and violent opposition to the Bible Society? We venture to say 
 that not a friend of the Bible Society in Europe or America expects 
 more from the Bible than to "make men wise unto salvation." 
 We never heard of one who carried his views of the sufficiency of 
 the Scriptures farther than this. 
 
 But it is evident that the bishop uses words in an uncommon 
 sense; and that he has some very queer notions for a Protestant, or 
 le never would have talked in the strange way he has done. Let 
 ihe reader look at the passage quoted above, once more. Let him 
 consider the positive and negative statements there made, and won- 
 der. The Scriptures are sufficient, — To make men wise unto sal« 
 vation — not to save them — to direct men what they must do to be 
 saved — infallibly to regulate faith and manners when truly inter- 
 preted and followed — to direct and bring sinners to Christ in the 
 external appointments of the church, the mmistry, and the sacra- 
 ments. And they are not sufficient as substitutes tor those integral 
 parts ofthe plan of snlvation, the church, ministry and sacraments — - 
 not in such wise sufficient, that men cannot be mistaken, or misled^ 
 in drawing from them their true meaning. And therefore the bish- 
 op asserts a2;ainstthe no comment principle, the utility and necessi- 
 ty 0^ explanations, illustrations, expositions, enforcements, &.C. &c. — 
 Who will denj' that here is copia verborum, if not lucidus ordo? 
 But did any one ever so waste his strength in beating the air? Who 
 ever said that the scriptures could save men — or that they were 
 substitutes for the sacraments — or that they could not be mistaken? 
 No friend of the Bible Society ever uttered such a sentiment, we 
 venture to say, or ever thought of such folly. While the bishop 
 then is laying about him so vehementlvj he does not tcffiQU "5. We 
 
142 Review nf Bishop llaveuseroft^s Vindication and Defence^ 
 
 only protest against the deception here unintentionally practised, 
 in making believe that while he is knocking to pieces his own men 
 of straw, he is cudgelling, or (we believe the term is,) " tisting'' 
 our reviewer, or any other friend of the Bible cause. 
 
 But it is evident that the bishop means something more than is at 
 the first glance apparent; because, he says, in opposition to the Bi- 
 ble Society, that the Scriptures are not svjicient to save men; — and 
 he lays great stress on the opinion, that they are not substitutes for 
 these "integral parts of the plan of salvation, the ctiurch, ministry, 
 and sacraments; nny he sajs that the sacratnents alone give "life 
 and power, and assurance to the word." He h.id previously main- 
 tained that "notes and comments were essential to the right under- 
 standing of the Strictures, and to a just application of its life-giving 
 truths." He may be considered, then, in relation to the sufficien- 
 cy of the Scriptures, as maintaining two negative propositions. 
 
 1. That the Scriptures are in such wise insufficient, that no 
 man, without notes and comments can rightly understand tbetn, 
 and apply their truths, so as to cherish a warranted hope of salva- 
 tion. 
 
 2. That the plan of salvation consists of four "integral parts." 
 
 1. The Holy Scriptures. 
 
 2. The church. [Q,uere — How will bishop R. define the church, 
 in this connexion.] 
 
 3. The ministry [consisting of bishops, priests and deacons.] 
 
 4. The Sacraments, namely. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 
 And either of these being wanting, the whole plan is marred, so as 
 
 to be inefficient for salvation. 
 
 We must be pardoned for refusing to subscribe to these dogmas. 
 They are unsupported by evidence — they derogate from the honor 
 of God's word — take away the right of private judgment — subvert 
 the liberties of men — give to the church (i. e. the clergy) a power 
 which God has never given, and, in a word, are highly injurious to 
 the best interests of society. 
 
 1. We deny that notes and comments are essential to the right 
 xmderstanding of the Bible. That, in any case, is essential, with- 
 out which a thing cannot be. He rightly understands the gospel, 
 who, under the influence of its truths, repents, believes, and lives 
 a holy life in love to God and man. If notes and comments are 
 essential to a right understanding of the Bible, then no one ever 
 did so understand it, as to repent, believe, and live a holy life, 
 without notes and comments. But this is directly contrary to facts, 
 as well known and as clearly established, as any facts of this kind 
 possibly can be. Some of the most pious persons ever known, 
 have become so, by reading the Bible without notes »nd comments. 
 In a case of this kind one fact is worth a cart-load of reasons. It 
 strengthens the argument to observe that many thousands of per- 
 sons have read notes and comments, yea many have written them, 
 and have preached the gospel, and admini^te!ed the sacraments, 
 without having ever rightly understood the Bible. 
 
 But in the next place, the Bible was clearly intended by its au- 
 thor for common use. Accordingly it is written in a style of re- 
 markable pl^nness and simplicity* Its fundamental truths are 
 
Meview ofBishep RavmscrqfVs Vindication and Defence. 143 
 
 facts as perfectly intelligible as any other facts. So that a plain 
 man, desirous to know the truth, may learn from that blessed book 
 every thing necessary to make him ivise to salvation. If it be al- 
 leged that there are many things, which he cannot understand ; we 
 admit it freely. So, also, there are many things which the writers 
 of notes and comments cannot understand. But all may learn 
 enough to let them understand what Ihey must do to be saved. — 
 Bishop R. admits this in his statement respe^^ting the efficacy of the 
 Bible. What more can notes and comments do? Can they save 
 him? Surely bishop R. will not say that any thing in the universe 
 caij do this, but God alone. Surely then it is better, incomparably 
 better, that men should have the Bible, than be without it. For 
 the Bible possesses the attribute of sufficiency, as far as this attri- 
 bute can be predicated of the means of salvation at all. For if 
 men make the right us^e of the information communicated by the 
 Bible, they will assuredly be saved. And bishop R. can say no 
 more respecting the church, ministry and sacraments. The case 
 is about as plain as this: Bishop R. says that bread and meat are 
 essential to the support of human life. We deny this, and allege 
 the fact that many have lived on bread alone. Bishop R. persists 
 in his assertion, and says it is manifest that God intended that man 
 should live on bread and meat; and because he cannot give both, 
 he will give none. Well, what sort of meat will you give? Here 
 arises a great dispute — some are for the "roast beef of Old England, 
 &c. &c." — Agreement is impossible — But all agree that bread is 
 good, and are willing to distiibute freely and abundantly. Bishop 
 R., however, vehemently exclaims, "your charity is spurious- 
 break up your Society — you pretend to give bread; and you give 
 only flour — every man will cook it in his own way — the people 
 will be poisoned — not a soul will be left alive !" — With humble 
 submission, we do not think so — while gentlemen eat hot buttered 
 rolls, many an honest citizen has lived, and raised fine hearty chil- 
 dren on hoecake. These plain, familiar illustrations, may oflfend 
 the fastidious — But we employ them, because the subject has been 
 Avonderfully bewildered by the perverse ingenuity of party spirit. 
 We close our remarks on this part of the suhject with a quotation 
 from an excellent work by Gastrell, formerly bishop of Chester, 
 entitled Christian Institutes, or the Sincere Word of God; being a plain 
 impartial account of the -whole Faith and duty of a christian, collected 
 out of the zvritings of the Old and JVeav Testament. *' For, all that 
 is needful for us to know of the common salvation, is so plainly set 
 forth to us, that he may run that readeth: But if the gospel be hid, 
 it is hid to them only that are lost, in whom the God of this world 
 hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of 
 the glorious gospel of Christ should siiine unto them. The Scrip- 
 tures then being plain and easy, so far as is necessary to make us 
 ■wise unto salvation through faith which is in Jesus Christ, we 
 ought to read them with the same sincerity with which they were 
 written, &.c." — pa. 6. 
 
 2. We deny that the " plan of salvation" is made up of " inte- 
 gral parts," so that if any one of them is wanting, the whole plan 
 is so marred as to be inefficient. Bishop R. seems to haye some 
 
:r44 Ufcitv) of Bixliop Ravenseroft^s Tindicfilion and Defence. 
 
 ?uch notion as this: namely, that the church has received certaio 
 means, which are to be employed each in accomplishing a certain 
 part of the work of salvation — thus, the Scriptures inform one what 
 he must do to be saved — the sacraments afford the way of going to 
 Christ — and the ministry gives assurance of salvation, or binds the 
 source of all mercy to fulfil his promises. So that if one has only 
 the Scriptures be can only be made wise unto salvation — but not be 
 saved? And so of a detiriency in regard to the other " integral 
 parts" of the plan of salvation! If he does not mean this, what 
 does he mean? And if he does mean this, to what school of the- 
 ology does he belong? 
 
 In religion, there are no physical influences. The whole pow- 
 er of the plan of salvation, in all its parts, is moral power. It is 
 the TRUTH, made efficient by the influences of the Holy Spirit, which 
 prepares men for heaven, by making them holy. And it is the 
 great business of the church, to declare the truth. 
 
 Now the whole truth respecting man's salvation is revealed in 
 Scripture. To this, none may add; from it none may take even a 
 jot or tittle. If any human being receives the truth as it is taught 
 in the Bible, so as to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and live a 
 life of holiness, he shall be saved. The church, ministry and sa- 
 craments are nothing more than various means, employed for the 
 purpose of carrying the truth to the understanding and the heart; 
 and they have not the least degree of efficiency, except so far as 
 they effect this purpose. It is utterly a superstitious notion to sup- 
 pose that any of these means derive efficacy or virtue from the of- 
 ficiating priest, by the consecrating prayer. Bishop R's. reason- 
 ing is a revival of the antiqurited and mischievous notion, that there 
 is a virtue in some of the "integral parts of the plan of salvation," 
 without which the Bible cannot be efficient. The " church, min- 
 istry and sacraments, when used accordmg to the intention of 
 Christ, hold forth precisely the truths taught in the Bible, and no 
 others. Now as the Bible reveals the xu'ltole truth, according to 
 which sinners are saved; the Holy Spirit may make, and as far as 
 we can judge in any such case, has made the Bible efficient to the 
 salvation of sinners. In this sense, the fViends of the Bible Society 
 do maintain the sufficiency of (he Word of God — and its exclu- 
 sive sufficiency: — not indeed to save men; but under [he Holy 
 Spirit to lead them to Christ, who alone can save them. This 
 may be done, without any other means. It is therefore, an unspeaka- 
 ble blessing to the nations of the earth to have the Bible. Bishop 
 R. says that this opinion and the practice growing out of it is plain- 
 ly contrary to the Word of God. But he has quoted no text to 
 prove it — And he ought to remember that the time has gone by^ 
 when the word of a bishop was taken for proof. 
 
 We maintain, on the very same pi inciples, that other means of 
 conveying the truth to the mind of a sinner niriy, through the agen- 
 cy of the Holy Spirit, be sufficient for salvation. Tfiere are, for 
 instance, thousands of persons in christian lands, who cannot read 
 the Bible. But they may, by catechetical instruction, be taught 
 the truths of revelation; they may learn to understand the signs of 
 God'6 covenant; and in the uge of the sacraments be prepared for 
 
M&ciew of Bishop S.aveuscroft*s VindkaUon and Defence. iA6 
 
 heaven. These are persons born blind and deaf, and so are cu!; 
 off from the use of a large part of the means appointed; yet truth 
 sufficient for their salvation may be communicated to their under- 
 standings. The only essential point is, to carry the truth to the un- 
 derstanding and conscience, so (hat men will exercise "repentance 
 towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." When they do 
 this, scripture gives the most positive assurance that they will be 
 saved. 
 
 All the means appointed by the gracious Head of the Church, 
 however, are adapted to the end proposed. He who enjoys them 
 all, has the greatest advantages in regard to salvation which can be 
 possessed. If we can send them all to others, ami fail to do so, we 
 are greatly to be blamed. But if it is impossible to send them all; 
 it is doing a very great favor to send a part. And if that part con- 
 tains, in "words which the Holy Spirit teacheth," the whole truth 
 which God has revealed; then that is done, which is sufficient for 
 the salvation of those who receive this gift. 
 
 How is it, then, that the Bible Society, which has engaged to 
 perform this enterprise of love for the world, should, while it is 
 assaulted by Infidels on one side, have to turn and defend itself 
 against the professed advocates of Christianity on the other? — We 
 conclude the Bible Society does not maintain that notes and com- 
 ments are unnecessary; and that there is no danger of men being 
 misled and mistaken, without them: and it does maintain that the 
 scriptures are in such wise sufficient, that from them men may 
 learn all necessary truth, and under the gracious influences of the 
 Holy Spirit, attain unto eternal life throuj^h Jesus Christ our Lord. 
 May God forever protect and bless the Bible Society ! 
 
 II. Whether the Bible Society holds that the church, ministry, and 
 sacraments are unnecessary: and thus sins against the plain will of 
 God. 
 
 Bishop R. repeatedly brings this charge against the friends of the 
 Bible cause. We must examine his proofs, and with this, consider 
 his notions respecting the church, ministry and sacraments. 
 
 On page 78, (the third paragraph of the long quotation before 
 made by us) the bishop affirms that the Bible Society principle 
 " authorizes the conclusion that the sacraments are not necessary 
 to give effect to the word of God." In the next paragraph, (page 
 79,) he affirms that "no christian can comprehend any saving bene- 
 fit from the mere letter of scripture, without the sacraments:" and 
 again, that they are " accompaniments essential to the saving ef- 
 fect" of the word of God. On page 88, we have the following 
 %vords. 
 
 " For the e^cJeK^ communication of spiritual instruction to mankind, God 
 sees fit, say you, among several ways in which it might be done, to select 
 human instrumentality, in the preaching of the word, and the administration 
 of the sacraments. Now, sir, does the Bible Society principle, or the Bible 
 Society as a body, pay the least regard to this example ? On the contrary, 
 by expressly excluding them, " no notes or comments" the Bible alone — 
 does it not practically reject them as necessary, and so far "nullify" them? 
 And am I not justified for the opinion expressed in the Sermon, p. 8, that 
 " the Bible itself was overlooked, in the clear directions which may be drawn 
 from it, as to the only saf"; and eflfectual manner of disseminating its savinp; 
 knowledge," 
 
146 Xeview of Bishop Mavensernft^s yindication and Defence. 
 
 We are called on here to consider two questions, 
 
 1. Whether the Bible Society can be justly charged with the 
 error of separating the Scriptures from the church, ministry and 
 sacraments ? 
 
 2. Whether the sacraments are "essential to the sating effect of 
 the Word of God." 
 
 We request our readers to keep their eyes on the extracts which 
 we have given from the bishop's book ; and now let them turn to 
 the third paragraph pa. 88, just noticed. We are so much afraid 
 of not knowing exactly what bishop R. means, that we are quite shy 
 of undertaking to abridge his language. We have found out that he 
 never, in any case, means what an antagonist has proved to be a mis- 
 take as to fact, or an error as to reasoning — But what he does mean 
 it is often very difficult for us to tell. 
 
 In the paragraph just preceding the one referred to, the bishop 
 bad said that the exclusion of notes and comments, was the sole 
 reason why he raised his voice against the Bible Society. And if 
 his demonstration is good, the reason was quite sufficient ; for the 
 principle, he says, is "demonstrably subversive of all revealed re- 
 ligion." Then follows the paragraph which now claims attention. 
 In it we have an additional reason to the sole reason: and it is one 
 of tremendous import. The Bible Society operates more exten- 
 sively and more certainly against the interests of revealed religion, 
 than by the exclusion of helps to understand the true meaning of 
 scripture. That operated to the subversion of all revealed religion; 
 but this is more extensive still : that was demonstrably true ; this 
 is more certain than demonstration. Well, what is it? ''Why the 
 Bible Society authorizes the conclusion that the sacraments are not 
 necessary to give effect to the Word of God." But the Bible So- 
 ciety has never said a single syllable about the sacraments. — Nay, 
 but not so fast — "All comments are excluded. Preaching and the 
 sacraments are, in the truest sense of the word, comments on the 
 scriptures, therefore, the Bible Society principle excludes the sa- 
 craments." — And therefore, again, the Bible Society principle 
 reaches further than the subversion of all revealed religion, and 
 this is more certain than demonstration ! But perhaps the words 
 more certainly, refer not to the demonstration of the evil, but to the 
 effect of the principle: if so, then we have this writer affirming 
 that the exclusion of the sacraments, "which are in the truest sense 
 of the word comments on the scripture" must be much more ex- 
 tensively and certainly injurious, than the exclusion of notes and 
 comments! The preacher tells us that this consequence from the 
 Bible Society principle was stated and urged in his sermon; but 
 that not even a plausible answer has yet been given to this part of 
 his argument. Perhaps the reason is that nobody has ever yet fully 
 comprehended the meaning of the right reverend prelate. We 
 however, will try our hand, under peril of an additional failure. 
 
 But first we must thank the bishop for the discovery, new indeed 
 to us, that the sacraments are comments on the scripture. A com- 
 ment is, according to common usage, an explanation, or exposition 
 of that which is not perfectly understood, or duly appreciated. But 
 a sacrament is a sign, Now when an action or thing is employed 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroffs Vindication and Defence* 147 
 
 to express ideas, there must be an agreement, or a mutual under- 
 standing between the parties communicating, as to the ideas intend- 
 ed to be conveyed by the sign. Otherwise it may be repeated 
 thousands of times, without being understood at all. Now it is from 
 scripture alone that we learn what meaning to attach to that sign of 
 the righteousness of faith, denominated a sacrament. There we 
 look for the purpose of ascertaining what truths God intended should 
 be represented by the sacraments. It is a fearful thing to attach 
 any other meaning to them, than that fixed on by the Head of the 
 Church, when he instituted them. It is then much more proper to 
 say that the scripture is a comment on the sacraments, than that the 
 sacraments are a comment on scripture. Precisely the reverse of 
 the bishop's saying is true, 'no christian can comprehend any sav- 
 ing benefit from the mere letter of scripture without the sacra- 
 ments." — He ought to have said "no christian can comprehend any 
 saving benefit from the sacraments, without that explanation of them 
 which is given by scripture. 
 
 But as the sacraments are not comments on scripture, the Bible 
 Society principle, which only excludes notes and comments, does not 
 exclude the sacraments. 
 
 Farther: in all that bishop R. has said on this subject, he appears 
 to us entirely to have mistaken the true character of the Bible So- 
 ciety. We must therefore repeat that it is not a church. It there- 
 fore, as a body, has nothing whatsoever to do with the sacraments. 
 It is a company, somewhat of a commercial character, formed not 
 for profit, but for benevolence. It claims as an association no right 
 or power, which is not possessed by every individual member. We 
 have a right to purchase and distribute gratuitously, or at prime 
 cost, as many Bibles as we can. Our neighbors have a right to do 
 so too. Or we may unite our charities and do the same thing. On 
 the very same principle, all in a county, a state, or kingdom, may 
 adopt the same measure. What have we, in this capacity, to do 
 with the adiuinistration of the sacraments? For all that we can see, 
 bishop R.'s argument would be just as strongly against the publica- 
 tion and sale of the Bible without note or comment, by a company 
 of Booksellers. The only difference is, that booksellers work for 
 money; but the Bible Society works gratuitously: — the booksellers 
 aim at profit; the Bible Society at "making men wise unto salva- 
 tion." Why does not bishop 11. pre:ich sermons, and write big- 
 pamphlets to show that booksellers ought to be discountenanced iu 
 selling the Bible alone to any but those who have the church, min- 
 istry, and sacraments? This Achillean argument against the Bible 
 Society, as the bishop seems to think it, is utterly without force or 
 skill. It is founded on a total misapprehension of the true charac- 
 ter of the institution. The bishop's reasoning otien reminds us of 
 an anecdote of Diogenes, and a young man. 1 he philosopher, on 
 seeing a youth shooting very unskilfully with a bow, went and placed 
 himself close by the target. To those who asked why he did this, 
 he replied, "I am afraid that if I sit any where else, that man will 
 shoot me.'"' — While we keep close to the Bible Society, we do not 
 ♦hink that the bishop will ever hit us. 
 10 
 
148 Jtevieiv of Bhhop Ravenscroffs Vindicaimi and Defence. 
 
 But altlioiigh this charitable company said nothing, as it was their 
 business to say nothing about tlie church, ministry, and sacra- 
 ments; yet in considering the good which was Hkely to result from 
 their benevolent exertions, they might very well expect, that the 
 distribution and general perusal of the Bible, would excite an ear- 
 nest desire to understand its ditjirult parts, and lead the reader to 
 seek for notes and comments — that, observing what is said in the 
 sacred volume respecting tfie christian ministry and the privileges 
 of the church, he would endeavor to procure for himself this bles- 
 sing; and that learning from the Bible the nature of the sacraments, 
 and the benefits derived through them, he ivould wish to partake of 
 those holy ordinances. — Now what is the fant? Since the organiza- 
 tion of the Bible Society, commentaries on the scriptures have been 
 multiplied and extended beyond all former example. Old works 
 have gone through new editions, and new works of this kind have 
 been circulated to an extent really surprising. Among many of the 
 former, vfe mention, Henry, Lovvtii, Patrick, and Whitby; and of the 
 latter, Mant and D'Oyley, Clarke, Hewlett, and Scott. The circu- 
 iation of the last work is really prodigious. We are inclined to 
 think that since the first publication of that commentary, more co- 
 pies of it have been sold, than had been of all other? during the pre- 
 ceding &ky years The bishop ought to rejoice in this; for Scott 
 was a member of the true. Apostolic, episcopal church. — Would 
 that there were thousands like him! 
 
 Moreover; ministers of the gospel have been much more sought 
 for, and much greater efforts to increase their numbers, have been 
 made since the organization of the Bible Society, than before. 
 
 And again; the reports of all the churches show a large increase 
 of regular, zealous, and pious communicants. 
 
 These are facts not to be questioned. This is the way in which 
 the Bible Society subverts revealed religion! There are no argu- 
 ments like facts. They demolish bishop R.'s reasonings as Per- 
 kins' new steam-gun is said to do a fabric of pine boards. 
 
 But we are to inquire in the next place, whether the sacra- 
 ments are "essential to the saving effect of the word of God." 
 
 We are obliged to consider this question, because bishop R. as- 
 sumes the affirmative ; and argues that the Bible Society is useless, 
 and worse than useless, because it does not send the sacraments 
 with the word. If it is true, that the Bible can produce no saving 
 effect without the sacraments; then indeed the Society h compara- 
 fively of little value. We say that bishop R. assu^ncs the affirmative, 
 because he does not offer either argument or authority in its sup- 
 port. But let us examine this subject. 
 
 The word of God has a saving effect, when men so believe it as 
 to be affected by its truths according to their nature ; that is, when 
 they fear the threatenings of God ; obey his commands ; rely on 
 his promises; embrace his offered mercy, &c. Cannot the word of 
 God produce this effect, undei the intluences of the Holy Spirit, 
 without the Sacraments? In answering this question, we must 
 again advert to the nature of the Sacraments. They are commonly 
 called by Theologians, in conformity to language used by the Apos- 
 tle Paul, (Rom. iv, 11.) "signs 'and seals of the righteousness of" 
 
Keview of Bishop Ravenscrofl's Viuukallon and Befencf, 149 
 
 faith." Now, thoy either I);ivo e(Ficncy in tliemselveis ; or because, 
 they strikingly exhibit the trdth, which God blesses to the salvation 
 of his people. Ifthey hnve efficacy in themselves, or if the ele- 
 ments iisetl are the jncdia, throniih which the Hoiy Spirit directly 
 conveys his blessings to the soul, Avithowt respect to the truth j 
 then we admit the old popish doctrine of eflicacy ex opere operato 
 An infant baptized by a duly authorized minister is, ipso facto, re- 
 generated ! A man who has received the bread and wine of the. 
 Lord's Supper, is ipso facto, for the time being at least, in a state 
 of salvation ! We do not charge these popish absurditi^^s on bishop 
 R, Doubtless he rejects them. He must then agree with us, that 
 the eflicacy of the sacraments under God, arises fVom this, that they 
 give a striking representation of that truth, which God has revealed 
 for the salvation of sinners. But in order that they may do this, we 
 must search the scriptures, and learn the meaning of the signs ap- 
 pointed for ttiis purpose. Tl>e Apostle Paul appears to us to teach 
 this doctrine, when he speaks of those who eat and drink unwor- 
 thily, because they do not discern the Lord's body. (1 Cor. xi, 
 29.) VVithout this knowledge, the sacraments will be a mere sense- 
 less show, incapable of proiilinii us in the least conceivable de- 
 gree. A man uninslructed as to the nature and design of the Lord's 
 Supper, might partake of it every day during his whole life, without 
 benefit. Hence it appears that here, as in the former case, bishop 
 R. has laid down his position wrong end foretuost. It is undeniably 
 true, that the knowledge derived from the word of God, is indispen- 
 sably necessary to give to the sacraments their saving elTect. We 
 know, indeed, and do most freely admit, that when the people are 
 well instructed, and do sincerely believe in the Lord Jesus, the 
 signs appointed by God, carry the truth with great power to the 
 heart. But can they do this, when men are unconverted and un- 
 believing ? 
 
 Farther : let us suppose, what has often happened, and may 
 happen again, unless a miracle should prevent it, that one, who has 
 no opportunity of receiving the sacraments but yet possesses the 
 scriptures, from diligent study oi" the word of God, receives the 
 same truths which are represented by the sacraments, and relies 
 for instance on the Savioui just as he does, who sees the atonement 
 exhibited by the L )rd's Supper, does not that man feel the saving 
 effect of divine truth ? Why u>ay he not ? The very same truth 
 is set forth in the word of God, which is exhibited by the sacra- 
 ments. Indeed the only difierence is, that he who has both the 
 word and the sacraments, has greater advantages than he who has 
 only the word. But the advantage does not lie in this, that the 
 former has more truth than the latter; he only has more means of 
 giving efficacy to the truth. 
 
 There is another idea on this subject entertained by the bishop, 
 which we are called on to notice. He maintains that the reception 
 of the sacraments, from n duly authorized minister, (^nnd we know 
 his meaning here) is necessary to give to man, the assurance of sal- 
 vation. And in his own peculiar style he says (pa. 3;J) "nor is the 
 modern doctrine of internal'^ consciousness, and assumed assurance 
 
 • We must be permitted to hope that bishop R's authority will 
 be extended by none to the English language. What distinction *l»e* Jife 
 
I5l) Itevinv of Bishop IlavenscroJC s Vindication and Befence. 
 
 <that sectarian opiate cf deluded sonis) any substitute for those ex- 
 urnal ordina7ices, which designate the covenant of mercy to re- 
 deemed man." — We think this a grievous error — wc fear that it i& 
 widely prevalent ; we are sure that it is deeply injurious. Presby- 
 terians never think of substituting internal feelings for external ob- 
 servances ; but, if they deserve the name, they are by far too well 
 instructed to say or believe, that the sacraments give to him who 
 receives them, the assurance that he will be saved. They do no 
 such thing. They exhibit, by objects of sense, the very same 
 truth (neither more nor less) which is taught in the word of God 
 namely, that the truly penitent and believing sinner shall be saved. 
 But how can one know that he repents and believes, but by con- 
 sciousness ? This is the otdy way by which we can possibly learn 
 what are our mental exercises. We determine whelher they are 
 genume or not, by comparing tiiem and the conduct lo which they 
 lead with the word of God. The sacraments, as seai;^ of the right- 
 eousness of faith, afford assurance of salvation, only so far as we 
 have evidence from the sources just indicated that we are chris- 
 tians. And they give this assurance simply because we know from 
 scripture that God has appointed them as his seals. To say then 
 that a priest gives assurance of salvation by administering the sa- 
 craments ; or that the sacraments assure a man that he is in cove- 
 nant with God, and so in a stale of salvation, is incorrect, is danger- 
 ous — It is one of those popish tendencies in bishop K's doctrine, of 
 •jvhich he seems not to be aware. 
 
 The whole case brought into this division of the subject may be 
 briefly stated thus — There are millions and mdlions m the world, 
 who have neither the word nor the sacraments. (Christians have 
 their missionaries to preach the gospel in heathen and destitute 
 lands. But this work goes on slowly. Of necessity, millions and 
 millions must die, before the church can send the living preacher 
 into all the world. But the Bible contains all the religious truth, 
 which the missionary ever can carry to the ignorant — that truth 
 may be read, and understood, and have saving edicacy, and give as- 
 surance of salvation, even without a preacher. Protestants believ- 
 ing this, and believing too, that the Bible is an admirable prepara- 
 tive for the way of the missionary, have, without interfering with 
 any church matters, formed a company lui sending the word of 
 God in its purity to all the world. — And this is the plan, which a 
 Protestant bishop has persuaded himself is contrary to the will of 
 God, and subversive of all revealed religion. Had not bishop R. 
 and others like him uttered this with theii own mouths ; and given 
 it under their own hands, in writing, ind in print, the world would 
 have cried out, on hearing it, with an incredulous stare, '"is it pos- 
 sible?" 
 
 On pages, 79, 80, bishop R. gives an extract from an address to 
 the American churches, by two of our missionaries in Bombay, as 
 testimony corroborative of his rf^asoniiig. iVJaking a hlile abate- 
 ment for the strong language employed by these excellent men, as 
 
 mean to make by the word internal, as applied to consciousness ? Is there 
 an external consciousness ,'' and what is the doctrine of ammed osswr- 
 
Jte'ciew of Bishop Kavenscroft^s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 15 i 
 
 friends of the Bible cause, we have not the shadow of an objection 
 to the sentiments contained in this address. We all admit the ne- 
 cessity of missionaries. No people in the world do so much for 
 the cause of missions, as the friends of the Bible Society. Bishop 
 R. may consult the records of the Church Alissianary Society, of the 
 London Missionary Society, of the Scotch Missionary Society, in Eu- 
 rope. He may then turn to all ths^ imi)ortaiit Societies of this kind 
 in America; and he will tind as suppoit(>rs of these Institutions, the 
 names of the very men. who have been the life and soul of the Bi- 
 ble cause. And it is their ardorit desire that chri 'i ms would not do 
 less for the distribution of the Bible, but a hundred fold more for the 
 sendnifj out of missionaries. Would bishop R. assist in supporting 
 the American Missionaries at Bombay? We are particularly desi- 
 rous to l)e informed on this subject. 
 
 As bishop R. has referred to the condition of the eastern world, 
 we should be glad to know whether he has read the life of Henry 
 Martyn; and made himself acquainted with the history of his trans- 
 lation of the New Testament into the Persian language. There is 
 much reason to believe that this work is exerting a great influence 
 in Persia; and that the way is being prepared by it for the suc- 
 cessful operations of Missionaries in that nation oi Mahomedans. 
 
 And here, having mentioned the name of Henry Martyn, we can- 
 not deny ourselves the pleasure of expressing our admiration of 
 his character. He was indeed a lovely christian. With talents of 
 high order, and great attainments for his age, he had all the sim- 
 plicity of a child, with the zeal and courage of an Apostle. W^ith 
 sufficient attachment to the forms and order of the Episcopal 
 church, he acknowledged brotherhood with all who loved the Lord 
 Jesus Christ. Short but brdliant was his career. Too soon, ac- 
 cording to the feelings of his friends and of the church, did he be- 
 come ripe for Heaven. They acknowledged, indeed, God's right 
 to take him; but they universally mourned his loss. His funeral 
 obsequies were celebrated by the whole Protestant world. We 
 have no wish for the Episcopal church, tlian that all her presbyters 
 may be like Henry Martyn. And we will add, all her bishops like 
 bishop Porteus, the first great friend of the Bible cause. Could 
 this wish be gratified, we should in the next place pray, that they 
 might be multiplied an hundred fold. 
 
 111. Bishop R. maintains, that the Bible Society encourages Here- 
 sy and Schism by declariiig, in effect, that all forms of religious faith 
 are equally safe; and maintaining that all are equally entitled to the 
 Tvitness of the spirit. 
 
 This objection appears to be the favorite of our author; for he re- 
 curs to it again and ^ig lin. and after his reasoning has spent its bolt, 
 he kindles about it the fiie of passion. But we believe that nobody 
 burns but himself 
 
 Our readers will have to turn again to the long extract, made 
 when we began this disru^sion, and read as follows, "But the Bible 
 Society, as a body, are aware of the fact " &c. Again, pp. 80, 81, 
 in accounting for the great popularity of the Bible Society, he as-, 
 cribes it to the "sanction and support which this 'no comment' 
 principle gives to the two very prevalent delusions of the latter 
 
152 liecietu of Bishop RarensGroJVs Vindication and Defence. 
 
 Hay, the one, that every man may safely form his own system ot 
 faith and order in religion; the other, that all who profess and call 
 themselves christians, no matter how separated and divided in faith, 
 origin and order, are nevertlieletis members of the one spouse* and 
 body of Christ, and ought to be acknowledged as such." 
 
 "Only acknowledge ns as branches of Clirist's Church, upon every thing 
 else let us "agree lo differ." But sir, the religion of the 'iiospel is a posi- 
 tive institution, wliich Bible Societies, and sectarian professions of failh, 
 cannot coiilrol, and mould, sind model to suit their particular views, but by 
 which they ought to and must be re.^^ulated. And a principle in religion, or 
 connected with religion :is revealed, which cannot bear being carried out to 
 its " legitimate" consequences and results, is not of God. The wisdom of 
 God sends us nothing in his word, or connected witii his religion, of this ab- 
 stract unmanageable character; beautiful in theor\', impossible or injurious 
 in practice. And the very fact, that in favor of tiiis very principle, every 
 shade of sectarian belief, every grade of speculative and actual unbelief, 
 can, and does unite, is conclusive proof, that the princi[)le is unsound, vi- 
 cious, and ultimately subversive of all reve;i!ed religion. Each sees in it 
 something favorable to its particular views, noi e perceive in it any thing in- 
 imical to its distinctive tenets, all find in it something which may be turned 
 to account, in the rivalry ft-r accesbion lo particular denominations in a divi- 
 ded christian world ; while in their aggregated capacitj of a " no comment" 
 Bible Society, they flatter and greet eacii other w ith tiie name ot Christians. 
 Deistical christians. Unitarian christians, Univcrsalist christians, Quaker 
 christians, Indepeniieiit christians. Congregational cliristians, Pit-sbUerian 
 christians, Methodist christians, Baptist ciinstians, Lutheran cnristians, names 
 without number christians, Nothingarian chrisiiaiis, and alas, alas! some 
 Kpiscopalian christians, all mcft here upon the same- level, all unite to send 
 the naked scriptures into the world ; al! being aware, that in the confusion 
 of mind, as to its real and single truth, consequent on existing divisions as 
 to what is truth, each may g-ive that gloss to the discoveries and doctrines of 
 the Bible, which shall suit its own views." — pp. 80, 81. 
 
 We shall certainly have to protest against the "no comment prin- 
 ciple," as applied to bishop Ravenscroft's uritings. We have ne- 
 ver, in all our liUle reading, met with a book n hich has greater 
 need of "explanations, illi!slr;ilions, expositions, and enforcements"' 
 of its "sense," than this same work, which we are now reviewing. 
 The last sentence of this extract calls loudly for the assistance of 
 some modern Vincentius Lirinensis. But rse must let it pass. 
 
 On page 83, the bishop admits, that "all profess (o derive their 
 religion from the scripture; and (he proceeds) 1 verily believe they 
 think they do so." He considers it "a di'bt due to real charity, to 
 consider all denominations as acting with integrity in (his enatter, 
 that they do verily believe, not only that they have (he warrant of 
 scripture, but that they have it in such wise as to be safer, as con- 
 cerns their souls, under this construction of srri|)ture, than thet'^ 
 could be under any other construction of it." "And (he adds em- 
 phatically) your chariiy inay yo fardier if it crm." — Alas! we can 
 make no comj)arison betwf^en onr charity and (hat of the bishop. 
 But we hold it to be a debt due to (ruth to adtnit (hat bishop R. does 
 verily believe that the ministrations of men can give "assurance to 
 the word" of God. If then, we might also be indulged in the folly 
 
 * Should there be found any to maintain this monstrous opinion, we are 
 pretty certain that thi y would not allow bishop H. to express it for them — 
 members of the one spouse ! We do not believe that amj friend of the .Bible- 
 Stjciety would use such language a§ this. 
 
'Review of Bishop Ravensereft^s Vindicaiien and Dtfeme. 153 
 
 of boasting, we would say, th:it our love of truth seems to be about 
 even with the bishop's charity. But he proceeds, and sa}9, very 
 •justly, that this sincerity does not prove that these denominations 
 are right. Nor does his sincerity prove that he is right. He, how- 
 ever, follows up these remarks, in such terms as these, and we give 
 them as a precious specimen of the style and spirit of our diocesan. 
 
 "The darkest and most preposterous fanatic that ever lived, equally with 
 the more dangerous heresiarch, and orthodox christian — John Bockholdt, 
 and George Fox— John Calvin, and John Wesley— Anna Lee, and Joanna 
 Southcote — Archbishop Cran'tier, and Bishop Kidle>, all [ji-ofessed to derive 
 their religion from tiie Bible, all claimed the scriptures as with them. Yet 
 forever and forever, must it not hold good— that whf-tiier right or wrong, 
 true or false, religion or no religion, must depend on scripture, well or ill 
 interpreted, understood and applied ? These all could net be right, some 
 must be radically wrong. Yet, according to your argument, upon the prin- 
 ciple of a " no comment'' Bible Society— the very delusion which aban- 
 dons the scriptures to any and every son of interpretation, "is ground 
 where all can meet," yes and be acknowledged too, as faithful christians. 
 For, if this was not a consequence, practically, of the principle, your num» 
 bers would be woefully thinned — But so it is. In these Societies, the Deist 
 and the Trinitarian, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the deniers of the divi- 
 nity of Christ and its defenders, the asserters of universal salvation and the 
 teachers of eternal punishment, the Quaker and the Churchman, the Pres- 
 byterian and the Episcopalian, the Baptist and the Pedo-Baptist, the true 
 believer and the Infidel of every shade, can find " one calm and peaceful 
 place" wherein "to indulge the delightful emotions of uvbounded benevO' 
 (ence, and unmingled confidence.^' And is such wild and visionary declama- 
 tion, tricked out in the tinsel of a spurious charity — ventured upon the pub- 
 lic intelligence, by a Divine and a Theologian of the nineteenth century ? 
 Are we from this to understand, that there is unmingled confidence betwixt 
 the Presbyterians and the Unitarians? Or is there some talit-manic charm 
 in this Bible Society principle, which fosters " unboundi^d benevolence," 
 while it interdicts the orderly prelude of joint prayer to God, for his bless- 
 ing on dieir joint work of enlightened charity ? Or, is the Jesuitical maxim, 
 that the end justifies the means, once more in operation ?" — pp. 83, 84. 
 
 Should the bishop publish another book on (iii'* subject, we shall 
 expect to hear of its having been made "demonstrably certain" 
 that the Bible Society is a new revelation of the man of sin; or 
 possibly thai it is the great beast of the Apocalypse, vvith seven 
 heads and ten horns. 
 
 But what is more amusing than this even, is the delightful speci- 
 men of his charity., (of which the bishop spoke in rather boastful 
 terms,) given in the sentence, " Are we from, this to understand, 
 that there is unmingled confidence between the Piesbyterians and 
 Unitarians?"* It m ly gratify the kindtiess of our prelate to learn 
 that this stroke diverted us excessively. 
 
 * A poor papist once applied to his Priest, with an offer of money and a 
 request that he would curse his enemy for him. The priest replied that he 
 ought not to curse, but pray for his enemies. " What shall /gain by that ?" 
 "Why, the scripture says that in so doing thou shah heap coals of fire on his 
 head. "Shall I do.so ? Then I -will pray for him enouorh.''—On coming to 
 this resolution, he immediately kneeled down in the church, and began to 
 pray very earnestly ; and continued Ins posture and his supplications, until the 
 Priest had got through his service, and wished to retire. Finding that the 
 man continued at prayer, the Priest became impatient, and interrupted him, 
 with — Come, you have prayed enough for this time — " O !" rejoined the 
 other, "I wish to burn him to a cinder, before I am done with him." 
 
134 Iteview of Bishop Ravettscrofi*s Vindication and Defence, 
 
 After a good deal more on this general subject, which we ha?e no 
 room to notice, on page 86, the bishop cl»^nct>es his arguments and 
 his rlietoric with, what it is due to truth or charity to admit that he 
 verily believed was a regular syllogism. 
 
 "Many opposite systems of religions profession are derived from the Bible, 
 In which "the pious of every name have felt the ponver of divine truth, and 
 know the preciousness of the Bible," and are saved: 
 
 But no saving knowledge can be drawn from the scriptures, but by the 
 Holy Ghost : 
 
 Therefore, the witness of the Spirit of God, is equally given to opposite 
 interpretations of scripture. 
 
 And this, I hope, will satisfy your desire for a regular syllogism, p. 253 — 
 will teach you to look to the consistency aid agreement of the principles 
 you advocate, with the reasonings you resort to — will lead you to be sorry 
 for your so frequent and needless attacks on that which, if you have eittier 
 piety or taste, you must love, the Book of Common Prayer."- p. 86. 
 
 There are many other passages in this part of the bishop's book 
 of similar import; we have no room to quote them; nor can it be 
 necessary that we should do so. It is clear enough that the defen- 
 der of the Bible Society against bishop R.'s attack, is called to con- 
 sider these questions. Does that body hold, 
 
 1. That all systems of religious faith which men have pretended 
 to derive from the Bible, are equally "safe for salvation ?" 
 
 2. That all are equally entitled to the witness of the Holy Spirit ? 
 
 3. And as a result of all this, does it encourage schism, heresy, 
 division and separation without end ? 
 
 1. It is surprising, when a man is determined on it, how high a 
 building he can erect on a single point. The misery of the case is, 
 that the materials being all very light, the first wind overturns the 
 whole superstructure, et ibi omnis labor effusus. The Bible Society 
 distributes the Bible "without note or comment" — therefore, — • 
 what? We should be perfectly willing to rest this whole matter, 
 on the answer that any person ot plain common sense would give to 
 this question. Nay, we would venture to risk our cause on the an- 
 swer of an intelligent child of twelve years. — We would say, "here 
 my dear boy, here is a book that we believe will do you good, if 
 you will take and read it — It is for this purpose we give il — Take 
 this Bible then — it is just the Bible and nothing else, the pure word 
 of God" — And on his bowing and giving in turn his "■thank ye," we 
 would say, "Now, my little fellow, what do you think is the reason 
 we give you this book, without any explanation to help you to un- 
 derstand it?"— Our life upon it, his answer would imply this — "Be- 
 cause you think the Book plain enough for me to read and under- 
 stand." What, the whole? "No, not the whole of this large book; 
 but a great deal nf it: enough to make me a good man." And should 
 we ask him, "Do you think that we give you just this book, because 
 we suppose that it makes no odds what opinions you derive from 
 it?" — He would surely answer, ••Certainly not — if you intend to do 
 me good by your gift." The question would excite surprise in any 
 unsophisticated mind. 
 
 But bishop R. seems to think, that the union of many individuals 
 belonging to different denominations, in the Bible Society, impresses 
 on it that character which he reprobate?. But his demonstrfitjon^ 
 
Meview of Bishop Rarenscroft's Plndicaiion and Defence. 155 
 
 have not yet convinced us; we wonder that tliey have convinced 
 himself. Let ws admit that the members of the Bible Society have 
 that party-feeling, the absence of wfiich in a christian seems to go 
 so far beyond the bishop's conception; that they unite for the pur- 
 pose of engaging in a "disgrareful scramble lor proselytes." These 
 indeed are strange suppositions; but let us make them — and what 
 then? Why, the Episcopalian believes that the Bible is on his side 
 • — so of the Presbyterian — so of the iVlethorlist — so of the Baptist— 
 and so of all the rest. Each one unites then, on the belief, that the 
 distribution of the Bible »vill promote his own cause. How, then 
 can his union with the others ije construed into a declaration, that 
 it is no matter what opinions a man derives from the Bible? We 
 should think it sounder logic to conclude, t!iat the diilerent denom- 
 inations are so sure that the Bible favoi s their opinions, that others 
 also would derive the same opinions fiom that source of religious 
 instruction. 
 
 All intelligent christians believe that learning and science are ex- 
 cellent handmaids to religion. We, as Presl>yterians, believe still 
 farther, that they f iv^or our denomination. Episcopalians and others 
 entertain the same opinion, in relition to their influence in favor of 
 their persuasion. Unbelievers m.iintain, that learning and science 
 are enemies lo wha( tiiey misname, superstition. These different 
 descriptions of persons all wish to promote the same object, but 
 with different views. Now there is in the state of N. Carolina, a 
 flourishing literary institution, the common property of the citizens 
 of that state, and supported by them on different principles; all, 
 however, admitting the value of learning. Will bishop R. and his 
 followers in North Carolina, adopt the spirit of his objection against 
 the Bible Society, and denounce and endeavor to pull down the 
 University? Will they say, "This institution is supported by Infi- 
 dels, and Baptists, and Methodists, and Presbyterians, and Nothing- 
 arians, and alas ! alas, by some Episcopalians, vvho by this union in 
 support of the University, declare that it is a matter of no conse- 
 quence what direction may be given to learning and science; for ac- 
 cording to their principle, all the uses which possibly can be made 
 of it are equally beneficial ?" Will they maintain that this union 
 in support of the University goes, directly, to the subversion of 
 learning and science in North Carolina? Will they maintain that it 
 implies, in all who are thus united, the opinion that Infidels, Bap- 
 tists, Methodists, kc. are all eq<ially right ? We presume th.it not 
 
 a m.m in the Diocese would ttuiik and act thus preposterously. 
 
 Well, what is the difference between this case, and that of the Bible 
 Society? It certainly would be more pK-asant to co-operate with 
 men who are all of one mind wiih us — But a.s this is not to be ex- 
 pected, we may all co-operate on this principle, that learning is a 
 good thing; and nlthough il may be .ibused, yet it is better for the 
 people to be with U tii m vvithont il. And on this principle, every 
 friend to North Carolina rejoices to see gentlemen of different per- 
 suasions co-operating in the building up and support of a valuable 
 and flourishing seat of learning in that state. And so all who duly 
 honor the word of God, and take enlarged views of the condition of 
 the world, rejoice in the formation and success of the Bible Sedety. 
 
156 Mevinv of Bishop Jta-oensereJVs Vindication andDafeuee. 
 
 But the bishop maintains (p. 77,) with a pertinacity truly ama- 
 zing, that the no comment principle recognises the equal truth and 
 safety of all the opposite opinions derived from the Bible; and he 
 endeavors to throw us on one horn or another of a dilemma, by 
 which he seems to think we must certainly be gored. " For of ne- 
 cessity, says he, the Society must either believe that all varieties 
 •f religious profession drawn from the Bible, are equally right, in 
 the sense of being equally safe; or they must believe that some of 
 them are unscriptural and unsafe. If the former of the alternatives 
 fwe suppose he means the foimcr part of the alternative,] is adopt- 
 ed, the principle is demonstrated to be productive of divisions iu 
 religion without limit. If the latter shall be resorted to, it shows 
 the principle to be justly liable to the charge of withholding from 
 the Bible what is essential to a right understanding of its contents." 
 We have never seen any thing more harmless in all our lives — 
 it is as gentle as "any sucking dove," The Bible Society as a 
 body, being, as we have shown, a company formed exclusively for 
 the wider distribution of the Bible, is obliged to believe nothing but 
 that the fair, natural, obvious construction of the Bible will bring 
 before the minds of men truth, which may make them wise unto 
 salvation. As a body, they maintain no other opinion whatsoever. 
 .Tust as a company of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, &,c. formed for 
 the promotion of learning, are obliged to believe as a company^ 
 nothing but this, that learning is beneficial. And even should the 
 Society make the extravagant declaration supposed in the dilemma, 
 it would be only the declaration of a company without authority — 
 it would prove nothing but the extravagance of the men who made 
 it. As for the Bible, it would remain just the same, a full expres- 
 sion of the counsel of God; in all fundamental matters so plain, that 
 every humble inquirer after truth, may learn the way to heaven. 
 Bishop R. has shown that, in his deliberate opinion, the Bible fully 
 supports Episcopacy. He acts under this conviction in all his 
 ministrations. The members of his vestry and his church, give 
 sufficient evidence publicly, that this is their conviction also. — 
 Should they join the Bible Society of North Carolina, do they for 
 a moment imagine that any body \n the slate would suspect them 
 of believing that people might as well be Presbyterians as Episco- 
 palians ? Would it not rather be said, " These people begin to 
 think that the Bible is on their side — and that its circulation will 
 promote their cause? May not similar remarks in some degree be 
 applied to Presbyterians and others; even to all the members of 
 the Bible Society? Can that then be true of the whole body, 
 which is not true of any of its parts, or of all of them? We wonder 
 much that the bishop is not afraid lest his opposition to the Bible 
 cause, will excite the suspicion that the Bible, in its plain obvious 
 sense, will not lead men to (he chvrck? The Bible Society is not 
 obliged then to believe what bishop R. thinks it must. So one 
 horn of the dilemma is broken. And should that Institution deny 
 the extravagant opinion before adverted to, it would not forsake its 
 own principles. There is not a shadow of inconsistency between 
 saying, " You may not wrest the scriptures to favor your own pas- 
 sions and prejudices:" and saying " Take the Bible as it is, in its 
 
Beview of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindimtion and Dejmce. l^T 
 
 plain meaning, and it will make you wise unto salvation." And ss 
 we have here a dilemma, with no horns. 
 
 In ringing changes on this subject the bishop (as may be seea 
 from the extract made from pp. 80, 81,) undertakes to account for 
 the popularity of the Bible Society. It gives countenance he says 
 to two prevalent delusions". 
 
 1. That every man may form his own system of faith and ordei; 
 in religion. 
 
 2. That all who call themselves christians ought to be acknowl- 
 edged as such, no matter how widely they differ. 
 
 On these points we must offer some remarks, to which we en- 
 treat the attention of our readers. 
 
 1. As to the tirst; we have a very fair opportunity of retorting 
 on bishop R. his own words in another place. The terms used by 
 him, taken in their unrestrirted sense, imply that it is a prevalent 
 opinion among the friends of the Bible Society, that every man may 
 safely form his own system of taith, whether he refers to the word 
 of God or not. And we might say to him, " Sir you knew better." 
 But we take no advantages of this sort. Bishop R. meant to say 
 that it is a prevalent error, that men may safely form for themselves 
 a system of faith from the word of God. In relation to this subject, 
 the Bible Society is bound by its principle to mamtain the follow- 
 ing position; that the wt)rd of God is so plain, that he who honestly 
 inquires for truth, may learn it from the Scriptures. That this is 
 no delusion, we have already shown, when treating on the sufficien 
 cy of the sacred writings. If a man has no helps in understanding 
 them, diligent reading, and humble prayer for the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit, will enable him to find the way to Heaven. But he 
 who has access to notes and comments, to the church and the minis- 
 try, yet proudly relies on his own understanding, slights his privi' 
 leges, and runs great risk of falling into fatal errors. He who en- 
 joys most means of understanding the word of God, is, ceteris pari- 
 bus, in the most advantageous situation. But in every case, one 
 must, with such helps as he has, form his own system of faith for 
 himself, under his convictions of truth, and his responsibility to his 
 Maker. Otherwise, what is his religion, but the religion of his 
 priest? If the man, who transacts business belxu'een us and God, could 
 in the day of judgment answer for us, and hear the consequences 
 of our errors, then the opposite plan would be safe. But as long as 
 religion is a personal concern, every man must judge for himself as 
 well as he can. Every man, indeed, is in danger of being mistaken, 
 no matter what his advantages are. But this danger does not arise 
 from the obscurity of the vvord of God in matters essential to salva- 
 tion, but from the blindness of the hum.m mind, and the passions 
 of the human heart. Every man then ought to remember his re- 
 sponsibility. Yet we must judge for ourselves. And this right of 
 private judgment is one of the l^undamental principles of Protestan- 
 ism; it is indispensable to the enjoyment of religious liberty; it is 
 implied in the very nature of religion. Every man, then, must, 
 with the best help he can obtain, form his own system of faith froa» 
 the word of God; and if he may not do it safely in this way; be caa« 
 not do it safely at all. And this, so far frow beinja delwsioB; is a* 
 all -important truth. 
 
1 5"S Bcricvj of JSishop Eaxmscroji's Vindication and Bejtiice. 
 
 2. The flcUision that all who profess to be christians, are chris 
 tians indeed, however opposite their religious sentiments, is not 
 one that belongs to the Bible Society. The principle of the asso- 
 ciation is, that the Bible phiinl^^ tearhes the truth; and that, if it ia 
 put into the hands of men, they may jivom it learn the truth. And 
 it does appear to us unaccotnitahjp. that any should force from this 
 simple principle the con-'luJiiou, that all, believe what they may, 
 are equally right. We wouM a?i(, does not the most plain and na- 
 tural construction of the Biblo, give its true meaninj;? Is it not 
 much more probable that a man in searcii of savinj^ knowledge, will 
 derive the true system from the Bible, than a f.lse cm? If bishop 
 R. denies this, then he mu»t suppose that the word of God is so 
 framed, although its design is to give instruction, that it is as likely 
 to lead men wrong as to direct (hem in the ri^iht way. And if he 
 rejects, as surely he does with horror, an opinion of this sort; how 
 can he charge the Bible Sorielv with holding the enormous absur- 
 dity, that all religious opinions, h^iwevtr opposite, are equally 
 sound and safe? The Society circulates a Book, the fair and natu- 
 ral construction of which discovers (he truth; yet they are charged, 
 in effect, with indifference to truth. It may as well be said that a 
 benevolent association formed for the purpose of supplying the 
 poor with flour in a time of sc.ircity, i.- inaiflVient wlietiier thy mix 
 poison with it, wbt n thpy m ikc it into brt-ad. It woul.i not alter 
 the case, if in this assoi^iation, there were a few individuals, who 
 had got into the strange liahil of mixing pnison with their own 
 bread; provider! tl>ey mixed none uilh the flour given to the poor. 
 
 In pursuing this subject, if bishop R. ^oes to the bottom of it, he 
 so "muddies the v;aters," tti;!t ne cannot see him. "But sir, says 
 he, the religion of the gospel i^ a positive institution, which Bible 
 Societies, and sectarian professions of faith cannot control, and 
 mould, and model to suit their p 'rticulai views, but by which they 
 ought to, and must he regulated." If we understand this, it means 
 that the gospel contains a system of truih; and men, to partake of 
 its benefits, must embrace the truth as revealed, and not warp it to 
 suit their prejudices. Very good! But how does this prove that 
 the Bible, which reveals this system, fiaay not safely be put into the 
 hands of men? He goes on; " And a principle in religion or con- 
 nected with religion as revealed, which cannot bear being carried 
 out to its " legitimate consequences and results, is not of God. 
 The wisdom of God sends -is nothing in his word, or connected with 
 his religion, of this abstract unmanageable char;<cft>r; beautiful in 
 theory, impossible or injurious in practice." What consequences, 
 or results, or abstractions, does the right reverend preacher mean. 
 And how does this prove that the Go:-pel in its piirily ought not to 
 be distribated ? We do wish that tlie writer had given us a regular 
 syllogism here. 
 
 But the author proceeds and waxes more vebement as he advan- 
 ces, until we come to Ihe wonderlul declamation res| ecting Deisti- 
 cal Christians, Unitarian Christians, Univeisalist Christians, kc. 
 iic; and (on page 83) respecting John Bockholt and George Fox, — 
 John Calvin and John Wesley— Anna Lee and Joanna Southcote — 
 Archbishop Cranmer, and Bishop Ridley.— [The Bible Society 
 
JRevietJt) of Bishop Ravenscroft*s Vindication and Defenee. 13?» 
 
 l>east will " beat that of Revelation all to nothing."] " These, says 
 the bishop, all professed to derive their religion from the Bible." — 
 Indeed ! We had always understood that several of them were pre- 
 tenders to ioi^piration; and set their "inward lii^ht" above the Bible. 
 "Yet (brever and forever, must it not hold good — tltat whether right 
 or wrong,&c. must depend on Scripture well or ill interpreted, &.c?" 
 Beyond a doubt it must. " These all could not be right, some must 
 be radically wrong," — Admitted, again. But .pray, now, tell us, right 
 reverend sir, which of all these were radicttlhj wrong. Were Cal- 
 vin, and Wesley, and Cranmer, and Ridley radically wrong? Or 
 is this to be said of Bockliolt and Fox, Lee and Southcote ? Wc 
 admit that some were radically wrong; and that none were in every 
 thing inf.dlibly right. But the radicallxj wrong, were piecisely 
 those very persons, who rejected the Bible, and pretended to ti 
 new illumination. We doubt very much indeed, whether the bishop 
 can find, in all the records of ecclesiastical history, and amidst all 
 the varieties of Christian belief, any denomination bearing the 
 name Christ, which has adhered to the plain meaning of Scrip- 
 ture, and yet has been radic.allij wrong. But of the rest; some 
 have been misled by substituting liieir own reason for the wisdom 
 of God; others by implicit belief in the Fathers; and others by 
 fanaticid imjiulses and wild notions about inspiration. Tlie very 
 instances adduced by bishop \\. give strong support to the Bible 
 Society. And let him know, that the very best pieservative against 
 radical error, is the general circulation of the Holy Scriptures. 
 Had the Bible Society been originated at the Reformation, and pur- 
 sued its operations successfully, we venture to say that there would 
 have been no place for these wild and dark fanatics in the protes- 
 tant world. And we beg leave to take this opportunity of saying 
 that history and experience present to the church and the world 
 this alternative — Either the religious liberty of the people must be 
 taken from them and conscience must be put into the keeping of priests; 
 or the Bible must be generally circulated, and the people accustomed to 
 judge for themselves. In other words, the people, with the Bible 
 in their hands must be a check on the ministers of religion, must 
 bring their doctrine to the standard of God's word; or as the Apos- 
 tle says, must try the spirits; otherwise that spiritual tyranny will 
 be revived, which degrades the understanding, which debases the 
 whole man, and brings him to believe that his priest can make his 
 God for him, can pardon his sins, an<l give him a passport to heaven. 
 There is not the shadov\ of a foundation for the charge of delu- 
 sion on the Bible Society. But tlie bishop himself labors under a 
 sad mistake as to the reason wh\ we wish tiiat all denominations of 
 Christians should cooperate in this work of bpuevolence. We 
 refer to the whole work undi-r review, but especi.dly to pages 80, 
 and 93, to justify us in the iollowing siatem^nt. Bishojt R, thinks 
 that the order of bishops (in his sense of l le woni) is essential to 
 the very being of tht- Church; and that thai part of the christian 
 world which is connected vvitu bishops constitutes the church; while 
 all the rest are without a ministry, witliout sacraments, without 
 warranted hopes, and with nothing to depend on, but the uncove- 
 nanted mercies of God. He kuows that they whom it gratifies him 
 
J 60 Review of Biihop UavenaeroJV s Vindication and Bejenee. 
 
 to call Dissenters, acknowledge prote.st;int Episcopalians to be a 
 branch of the true church; while he and his hijfh church brethren 
 refuse to acknowledge them. He does not know, perhaps, what 
 the celebrated archbishop Tillotson said respecting a similar case 
 between the Roman Catholics and the Church of England. "It 
 only proves, said he, that the Church of England is more liberal 
 than the Church of Rome." Bishop R. manifestly, takes it for 
 granted that the Dissenters are not perfectly satisfied, or that they 
 would be better satisfied; with their forms and order, if Episcopa- 
 lians would acknowledge them to be a part of the true Church; and 
 he seems to suppose that this zeal for "promiscuous, no comment" 
 Bible Societies, arises from what appears to be a sort of acknowl- 
 edgment of other denominations made by Episcopalians, when 
 they become members of such Societies. And this too, we verily 
 believe, constitutes one main reason of the opposition of high- 
 churchmen to Bible Societies. Their conduct speaks this language; 
 "If we unite with others in disseminating the Bible, we shall abandon 
 our high ground, and acknowledire tliem to be members of the 
 church, as well as ourselves. And this is what they wish." — But 
 in good sooth, it is not so. We do indeed acknowledge Episcopa- 
 lians as mr-nibers of the Church of Christ; and when they will allow 
 HS, we delight to meet them as brethren. But we acknowledge 
 that bishops have auth rity to ordain, &.c. not because they are bish- 
 ops, but because they are priests — that is presbyters. They have 
 authority then, precisely for the same reason, that we have author- 
 ity. These our convictions are founded on the plain meaning of 
 the word of God; and the acknowledgment of our church member- 
 ship by all the men in the world, could not add "an atom's force" to 
 Gur assurance. But we should rejoice in the event, as evidence of 
 the increase of truly christian feelings ; as an omen for good to 
 the church: as a token of the hastening on of the day of glory, 
 promised by God, and prayed for by his people. — It is in vain, we 
 know, to hope that men, whose views of religion are imperfect, and 
 whose souls are narrowed by bigotry, will enter into the feelings of 
 those who look more to the effect produced by truth, than to the 
 form in which it is exhibited; and who value external observances 
 precisely as they are suited to make men humble, benevolent and 
 holy. But we believe that the time is coming, when the disciples 
 of Christ throughout the world, will love trutl. and holiness so 
 much, that wherever they shall see the one so embraced as to pro- 
 duce the other, they will rejoire in it. no matter by what forms this 
 truth may have been exhibited and rommended. Then will the 
 church appear in all her jrlory. It is for the hastening on of a con- 
 summation so devoutly to be wished, that we long to see Chris- 
 tians acknowledging each other, and ro-operatmg, wherever they 
 can do so, without a sacrifice of principle. And if they cannot do 
 SO, because forms and modes are, in their judgment, principles of 
 religion; why, we do not wish them to violate, but we wish them to 
 inform their consciences. 
 
 Farther ; we do ourselves fully believe that all those christian 
 societies, which, in the spirit of party, or on account of an undue 
 stress on modes of ordination, baptism, &c. &c. refuse to co-operate 
 
Seview of Bishop Ravenseroft*s Vindication and Befence. 16 i 
 
 in building up the kingdom of the Redeemer, will be destroyed "by 
 the breath of his mouth, and by the brightness of his coming." — 
 To high churchmen, then, we wish a better mmd, for thejr owa 
 sakes, not for our ovvn ; for the honor of our common religion, not 
 for the benefit of a sect or a party. 
 
 2. As the Bible Society does not hold that all systems pretended 
 to be derived from the Bible are equally safe ; so, it does not hold 
 that all are equally entitled to the witness of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 There is an mtimate connexion between these two points, so 
 that much that may be said on one, equally applies to the other. 
 We cannot, tiowever, speak with any certaint) respecting the ex- 
 tent of the bishop's meaning here. It may l)e thus, — God, in the 
 gracious constitution of his covenant, has promised the Holy Spirit 
 to make the truth effectual to the sanctitication of his people. Now 
 the "no com.nent principle" maintains that opposite systems of re- 
 ligious belief are equally "safe for salvation." But no system of re- 
 ligious belief is effectual without the influences of the Holy Spirit. 
 Therefore the "no comment principle" maintains that opposite sys- 
 tems are according to the promise of God equally entitled to the in- 
 fluences of the Spirit. Bishop R. may carry his meaning farther 
 than we should in using the words above ; and make a system of re- 
 ligious belief include the external form of the church, as well as the 
 doctrine embraced by it, and taught in it. 
 
 Now we might easily despatch this topic in very few words ; 
 thus — The Bible Society, as we have shown, does not hold that 
 opposite sj'Stems of religious faith are equally safe ; and therefore 
 it does not hold that they, who embrace opposite systems, are equal- 
 ly warranted to expect the "witness of the spirit." — But in treating 
 this part of the subject bishop R. touches many things, which we 
 tilso must handle. And as he sums up all that lie has to say, in the 
 way of argument, on this topic in a syllogism, we may as well as not, 
 turn to that at once. 
 
 "Many opposite systems of religious profession are derived from 
 the Bible, in which 'the pious of every name have felt the power 
 of divine truth, and know the preciousness of the Bible,' and are 
 saved. 
 
 But no saving knowledge can be drawn from the scriptures, but 
 by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Therefore, the witness of the Spirit of God, is equally given to 
 opposite interpretations of Scripture." 
 
 "And this I hope will satisfy your desire for a regular syllogism — 
 will teach you to look to the consistency and aj.reement of the prin- 
 ciples you advocate, with the reasonings you resort to — w ill lead you 
 to be sorry for your so frequpnt and needless attacks on that wliicb, 
 if you have either piety or taste, you must love the book of Common 
 Prayer." — p. 86. 
 
 It is always painful to us to disappoint the high hopes of any fel- 
 low creature. But there is no help for it.— This syllogi>m has not 
 done one of the things which the bishop so confidently expected to 
 be achieved by it. It does not satisfy us ; because it is not a regular 
 syllogism. — It does not teach us ; because we have not been guilty 
 of the inconsistency charged,— It does not make «s sorry; because 
 
I6i2 Review of Bisi'wp Itaveiistroft's Vindication and BefencE* 
 
 we have not yet made the alleged attack. Yet we are sorry too- 
 sorry to see X bishop put forth a form of words hke tHat, and call 
 them a regular (jyllogism ; and appear to consider it as triumphant 
 reasoning. A regular syllogism ! We should as soon mistake a 
 brown loaf for a shoulder of mutton. 
 
 We reject the syllogism for two reasons. 
 
 1. The affirmative proposition contained in the major, is denied. 
 Our logician intends to defeat our reasoning in favor of the Bible 
 Society, by reducing us to an absunliry. He therefore affirms that 
 we maintain this proposition ; that opposite systems of faith pro- 
 duce the same pious feelings; or that opposite doctrines contain 
 that divine truth which the pious of every name feel. Kegatur 
 major — this we utterly deny. 
 
 In our former Review, we had said that Protestants are divided 
 into a number of different Henomin.itions, chiefly by matters of ex- 
 ternal observance. But K'at ;dl derived their religion from the scrip- 
 tures ; and that the pious among them of cjer;/ name, have felt the 
 power of divine truth, and know the preciousness of the Bible. 
 Here is ground on which all can meet — one calm and peaceful 
 place, &c. 
 
 The bishop admits that Sectarians are thus divided among them- 
 selves ; but in that courteous language for which he is so remark- 
 able, he says, "/t is not true, as respects the separation of Secta- 
 rians from Episcopalians — it is totally false — [we italicize his words] 
 as respects myself, 1 am divided from no Protestant denomination, 
 noryet is the church to which I In-long, so divided on a matter of 
 mere external observance, on a point that is not of positive institu- 
 tion, and fundamental iiiiportance to religion as revealed. . Yet this 
 is also, one of the deceits practised on the ignorant." 
 
 Now let the people judge. The different denominations of chris- 
 tians, usually included in the terra Protestant, have drawn out into 
 a series of distinct propositions, the opinions which they have de- 
 rived from scripture. These propositions, as far as they are thought 
 to be very important, are framed into articles. We have taken some 
 pains in comparing the articles of different churches ; and, using 
 a certain number for a large number, we would say that there are 
 0ty particulars in which the confessions of the Protestant churches 
 harmonize, for one in which they differ. Nay ; we could select 
 two Episcopalians, to whom we would assign, separately, the work 
 of drawing out into distinct form all the propositions contained in the 
 39 articles of the Churcli of England ; and then take a Presbyterian, 
 and require that he should do tlie same thing in relation to ihe cor- 
 responding articles of his confession ; and we would venture our 
 life upon it, that the two Episcopalians would differ in many more 
 points, than one of them would ditier in from the Presbyterian. Or 
 we would be willing to take tlie system of Divinity .Irawn up 
 by Archbishop Usher and the pamphlets and sermons published by 
 bishop Ravenscroft; and point out more and greater diflt-rences be- 
 tween the archbishop and the bishop, than we can find between our 
 •wn creed, and the 39 articles. Making these articles the standaid, 
 the principal points of difference respect the form of the church. 
 "We believe in the Hoiy Trinity, in the Word or Son of God made 
 
Meview of Bishop 'B.avenscrctjfs Vindication and Defence. IG3 
 
 man, in the death and resurrection of Christ, in the sufficiency of 
 the scriptures, in the doctiiue of the Old Testament, in as much of 
 the three creeds as may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy 
 Scripture, in original or birth sin, in the disability of will after the 
 fall of Adam, in justitication by faith, in good works, &c. &:c. &c. 
 throughout the articles with very few exceptions. Then according 
 to the Episcopal standard of doctrine, the differences between Epis- 
 copalians and Presbyterians are very slight. The variations are 
 principally these. 1. Episcopalians use a liturgy, and Presbyte- 
 rians do not. But they both pray for the same blessings. The dif- 
 ference here is in form surely. 2. Episcopalians have three 
 orders of ministers, bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; but Presby- 
 terians have only one, that of bishops or presbyters : but they 
 prea(^h substantially the same truths. 3. They differ in the admin- 
 istration of the sacraments : bui these sacraments are signs and seals 
 of the same righteousness of faith. Let every man of common ua- 
 derstanding say, whether these differences are not differences in 
 relation to matters of more external observance. Mow could the 
 bishop then say such a "naughty word" as, "it is false?" 
 
 These remarks have prepared the reader to judge, whether 
 the protestant confessions contain opposite systems of religious be- 
 lief. We maintain that protestants hold much truth in common. We 
 took bishop R.'s statement of truths held by him as fundamental, 
 and are prepared to show that the different communions included ia 
 the term protestants, as generally used, hold substantially the same 
 truths. They do not maintain opposite systems then. There are 
 in the United States, 24 independent Republics, the constitutions of 
 which are all founded on the same great principles of civil liberty: 
 yet in a number of subordinate particulars, all these forms of state 
 polity differ among themselves. Bisliop R. may as well say that 
 they hold opposite systemsof politics, as that the Protestant churches 
 hold opposite systems of religious belief. Two men wear coats; 
 one a plain coat; the other, lapelled. Both have bodies, and skirts, 
 and sleeves, and buttons, and pockets; and both answer the very 
 same purposes— BuT they have a slight difference of form. Have 
 these men opposite refisons for wearing a coat? Or will the bishop 
 say that the man who wears a plain coat, wears no coat at all? 
 
 It is impossible for him to maintain an opinion contrary to this of 
 ours, unless he is also prepared to hold this, that the nature of re- 
 vealed religion is such, that its saving effect does not depend solely 
 on the truth revealed by the Lord Jesus as believed, and embraced 
 with all tlie heart; but also on the mode, or instruraentulity by which 
 it is conveyed to the mind. It is not true then that the Protestant 
 denominations derive opposite systems from the Bible. 
 
 2. The other ol)jection which we have to the syllogism is that 
 the conclusion has in it a term not contained in the premises. We 
 mean the word eq,uallv. Wliat has the bishop forgotten his logic? 
 Did he not know that in order to render the syllogism a good one, 
 he ought to have had in the major, the terms, an equal number of 
 the pious, have E(iv ALLY felt the [iower of divine truth? Otherwise 
 how could he dare to say in his conclusion, "therefore the witness 
 21 
 
i 64 Review of Bishop li^ivenscroJVs f'indicaUon and DeJencCi 
 
 of the spirit of God, is equally given to opposite interpretations ot" 
 scripture?" Fie! Jie! fie! 
 
 Nothing that we ever said or thought can justify the declaration 
 that we hoUi the opinion impHed in the bishop's syllogism. Where 
 men differ in matters of doctrine, both cannot be right. They who 
 receive the most truth are, other things being equal, most likely to 
 become holy. Tho Holy Spirit never uses any thing but truth for 
 the sanctification of sinners. We now will try our hand at a syllo- 
 gism, and in it will express what we really do maintain as christians 
 and friends of the Bible Society. 
 
 The Protestant churches df-rive from scripture, and jjold in com- 
 mon the fundamental truths of the gospel. 
 
 But it is such truths, which the Holy Spirit makes effectual to sal- 
 Tation. 
 
 Therefore there are in the Protestant churches truly pious per- 
 sons, who have felt the power of divine truth, and have been made 
 wise unto salvation. 
 
 Corollary. Hence the members of Protestant churches ought to 
 acknowledge each other as fellow Christians, and co-operate in pro- 
 moting the kingdom of Christ. Not that we think church-mem- 
 bership has any thing to do with the Bible Society: but when men 
 belong to the body of Christ, it is a great shame for them to refuse 
 to unite in making known his salvation throujj:bout the world. 
 
 We had marked a number of other passages under this head; but 
 they are all so much alike both in their logic, and in their temper. 
 that we think it unnecessary to notice them. 
 
 3. The third particular in this part of the subject is, that the Bi- 
 ble Society encourages heresy, schism, and divisions without end. 
 The following extracts will present bishop R's notions on this sub- 
 ject; and show his manner of supporting them. 
 
 «*For admUting even, that tlie principle (i.e. the no comment principle) 
 IS not abused in Christian lands, to the formation of new systems, an:l sects 
 of religion, by the readers of the naked Scriptures, and tliat men arc stirred 
 up by the Bible alone, to seek the salvation of their souls ; they must of ne- 
 cessity, unite themselves with some one of the various religious denomina- 
 tions around them, or adopt the notion of an invisible cljurch, and rely on 
 inward assurance, &c. becoming liberal Chr]s{\nns, that is. Christians indif- 
 ferent alike to the faith and order of ilie Gospel, on the plea that all are 
 right in so far as salvation is concerned. Now what is this, but plainly and 
 palpably sanctioning the prevailing notion, that contradictory creeds and 
 confessions of fiiith, and oppositions of external order, are equally safe for 
 the attainment of the salvation offered by the gosprl ? In what does it 
 come short of giving the whole weight of these Bible Societies to the infi- 
 del notion, that the scripture denounced sins of hert-sy and schism, are 
 no longer within the range of our commissions? For one of these two 
 things is infallibly certain. Either, all the various denominations of chris- 
 tian profession within tl:e^ r^nge of Bible Society circulation of the Scrip, 
 tures are equally true and orthodox branches of the church of Christ, and 
 equally safe for the attainment of salvation ; or some of tliem are in heresy 
 or schism— or both heretical and schismatical, and not thus safe. But the 
 Bible Society principle, that tiie scriptures alone are sufficient to determine 
 the truth or error— the heresy or schism, of opposite denominations, all 
 ahke claiming the scriptures to be with them, does give the sanction of that 
 body to the monstrous proposition, that it is a matter of entire indiffrrence 
 and equal safely, whichever denomination a man unites himself with aa a 
 church member ; and by i similar consequence, that the sins of heresy and 
 »chism,are cither abrog»tcd, or vet future."— pp. 90, 91, 
 
Beviexi^ of Bishop }iai>easc>'oft*s yimUcaUou, and Defence* l^;* 
 
 Again, 
 
 "In their composition, and in their principle of action, Bible Societies oX 
 tliis stamp, are representatives, and in fact enconragers, of the foulest blot 
 upon Clnistianily, its divisions. And the more I reflect upon it, and the 
 more I see of the growini^ consequences of this fatal principle, the more 
 confirmed I am, that the secret of its popularity is that mentioned in the pre- 
 face to the Sermon. " It leaves the field free for their respective emissa- 
 ries, to give their separate and opposite constructions of " the one faith of 
 the Gospel." And when we add to this, that the Society itself as a bod)', 
 is a virtual acknowledgment of every separate denomination, as a lawful and 
 Scriptural brand) of the Catholic Church, we need not resort to supernatu- 
 ral influence of a Heavenly character, at least to account for the torrent like 
 nature of its success, in a divided Christian world." — p. 94. 
 
 We here see additional instances of the unsound logic of our au- 
 thor. The Bible Society is a virtual acknowledgment of every 
 separate denomination, as a lawful and scriptural branch of the 
 church of Christ. We have shown that the Protestant churches, 
 who hold, in common, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, 
 ought indeed to acknowledge each other as brethren; yet their 
 union in the Bible Society is not to be construed as an admission 
 that the respective denominations of the several members of the 
 association, are members of the true church. If two men agree to 
 co-operate in accomplishing one thing, it is no proof that they agree 
 in another which is different; especially when they take pains to 
 let it be known that they do differ: nor is it a declaration that the 
 points in which they differ are of a neutral or indifferent character. 
 The whole amount of the conclusion ought to be this, that the thing 
 to be done by their joint exertions is in their judgment a good thing. 
 Now the universal protestant principle is that the scriptures are 
 " sufficient to make men wise unto salvation." On this ground, 
 should Turks. Hindoos, Unitarians, agree to assist us in distributing 
 the Bible, we would gladly accept their aid; under the persuasion 
 that the plain meaning and natural construction of the Scriptures 
 will show the truth. And we are sure that a Bible given by a Turk 
 or a Hindoo, is still a Bible, and is just as likely to lead one right, 
 as though it were given by an Archbishop. 
 
 But let our readers mark the reasoning of bishop R. in the first 
 of these extracts. Should the principle of the Bible Society not be 
 abused, in christian lands, to the formation of new sects and systems, 
 but should "men be stirred up to seek the salvation of their souls, 
 they must of necessity unite themselves to some of the various de- 
 nominations around them. &c." Is not here a discovery of the se- 
 cret of opposition to the Bible Society? Is not bishop R. afraid 
 that the distribution of the Bible alone will carry men to dissenting 
 denominations? Hinc ilia lachryma! But we ask. again, does the 
 fair construction of the Bible le;id men to error? And if men have 
 the opportunity of knowing the truth, are they not free to choose 
 their religious connexions 1 There is then no such necessity as the 
 bishop speaks of But we should like to know whether the bishop 
 will Aitiihold the Bible, if he can, from men perishing in ignorance 
 and sin, until he can be assured that they shall receive it with such 
 notes and comments, as will make them sound Episcopalians. U it 
 bishop R's. opinion that unless men are in the Episcopal church, 
 whether they have the Bible or not; whether they belong to other 
 
■J(3ti HcrictO of Bishop Ravcnscrnjl's Vindication and Defence. 
 
 ilcnottiinations or not, Ihey are in tlie condition of heathen, with 
 only the uncovenanted mercies of God; and that tlierefore he will, 
 for himself, hold back the Bible, until he can send with it the 
 (Episcopal) church, ministry and sacraments? This we verily be- 
 lieve to be his real opinion; and it is the most extraordinary in- 
 stance of the extent to which party feeling can carry h protestant, 
 that we have ever witnessed. In truth we believe that the bishop 
 thinks the condition of the he nthen better than ti«at of Protestant 
 Dissenters. And our readers will jud;!;e for themselves. 
 
 In recommendation ol"the Bible Society, we had said, that there 
 were six hundred milboris of human beings without the Bdile, — 
 Heathens, Mahomedans and nominal christians, perishing in igno- 
 rance and sin. On this subject, our author expresses bimself tlius, 
 
 "As respects ndtmina! Christians, tliut is, persons under the liglU of tlie gos- 
 pel, the assertion is true, und would lo Gnd, that this overflowint,' benevo- 
 lence, of wliich so nnsch is said, could be directefl, in tliis coiiritry at least, 
 to tlieir really <lfstitute and d:iiii<eroiis-conditian, iiisK^ad of t- va^jorating in 
 this great emulation of ntisguided zi'al, which literally, takes the cliildren's 
 portion, and squanders it unprofitably upon strangers. As respicts the 
 Heathen, propeily so called, the asstrtion is not true, either in its terms, or 
 in the sense it is taken by tlie general class of readers — the Heathen are not 
 perishing because they have not the Bible. 'I'he want of it will liol be charged 
 to their account, nor its conditions required of thc-m, neither will they be 
 judged by its law — it is not of their procuruig, titat they have not the Bible, 
 but of the providence of Almighty God. He iias not seen fit in his wisdom, 
 to call them as yet into covenant with him ; but the time is coming, and as- 
 suredly, when the work is of God, iiis word and his sarraments, the seals of 
 his covenanted mercies vtill not be separated. In the mean time, his uncove- 
 nanted mercies are towards and over them, and 1 doubt not that many a 
 Heathen will rejoice before God forever, when Christians with tiie Bible, 
 will be howling in everlasting darkness. Yet this is one of the stalking 
 borses, behind which to take aim at contributions for 'no comment' Bible 
 Societies. Nevertheless, it is most heartily to be wished, and most devout- 
 ly to be prayed, and earnestly labored for, that the Heathen may be furnish- 
 ed with the Bible — not naked and shorn of its strength, but as God was 
 pleased to send it at the first, with \\\s church, his ministers, and liis sacra- 
 ments, as his seals of its precious promises to all who receive them, and as 
 means of his Heavenly Grace to a fallen world."— p. 82. 
 
 The first remark in this extract, appears to us to assume, that 
 the Bible Society overlooks the wants of nominal christians. But 
 this is not so. The first object of the Bibb^. Society of America is 
 to supply our own population. It also seems to take for granted, 
 that all, in what is called Christendom, ought to be converted tiefore 
 attempts are made to bring the heathen to the knowledge of salva- 
 tion. But the Apostles did not pursue this course. Our blessed 
 Saviour did not teach the doctrine that appears to be here inculca- 
 ted, when he healed the daughter of the woman of Canaan; -or 
 ■when he uttered the beautiful parable of the good Samaritan, of 
 which the true interpretation is, that every human being is our bro- 
 ther, to whom it is in our power to show kindness. 
 
 Let us, however, hear what the bishop says about the heathen. — 
 " It is not true, either in its terms, or in the scmisg it ist iken by the 
 general class of readers — the kcailien are not perishing because they 
 have not the Bible.'''' We had said, they were perishing in ignorance 
 and sin; manifestly assigning ignorance and sin as the cause of their 
 
Ite-oiexv of Bishm Ra'censcrqft*s Tindiention and Defence. 167 
 
 perdition. The bishop says, " The watit of the Bible is not the 
 cause of their perdition. .We say one thing, and the bishop affirms 
 that another thing, which we did not say, is not true. It is a case 
 like this — suppose the inhabitants of a city, infected with a fjrievous 
 pestilence, to be without suitable medicine, and we should say, 
 "Thousands are perishing without suitable medicine — bishop R. on 
 the ground of his reasouina; mi^ht contradict us, and -^ay, "^"It is not 
 true: they are not j)erishina; in this way. The want of medicine 
 never was the cause of death. Now the Bible is to the heathen 
 peri«<hinir in ignorance and- sin, what suitable medicine is to the 
 sick. Oiir revifwcr wished all to unite in sf>ndin<r to these ruined 
 souls, the remedy provided by the great physician. The bishop 
 refuses. He will not simkI the appropri ste remedy unless he can 
 also send a doctor to prescribe and administer. And as he has no 
 doclor to send; he thinks it better, to keep the remedy, and the 
 •written prescription at home, and let the sick struggle with disease 
 as they can. 
 
 But while the reviewer assigned ignorance and sin, as the cause 
 of the perdition of the heathen, he went no farther than the word 
 of God warrants. He did not say that the heathen would be lost 
 because they have not the Bible. He has always been cautious in 
 speaking on this subject. But he knows, because God has revealed 
 it, that '■'■without holiness no man shall see the Lord.'^ And while 
 he searches in vain , in the language of heathens, for a word expres- 
 sive of the scriptural notion of holiness; and while he sees, in all 
 the forms of heathenism, pollution and sin and shame, he cannot 
 venture to use the language of the bishop, and say, " I doubt not 
 that many a heathen will rejoice before God forever, when chris- 
 tians with the Bible, will be howling in pveriur.iing darkness." We 
 know that men do sadly abuse their privileges; and that they do 
 thus incur an aggravated condemnation. " They shall be beaten 
 with many stripes." But this does not prove that it is better to be 
 ignorant of the will of God, than to know it. Otherwise, the men 
 who have the greatest advantages, the Bible, church, ministry and 
 sacraments, are worse ofif th;ui all others. But surely, he is in a 
 better situation to attain holiness, who has the Bible, than he who 
 has it not. — The xviiith article of the Episcopal church is in these 
 words, " They also are to be had accursed, that presume to say, 
 That every man shall be saved by the Law or sect which he pro- 
 ff.sseth; so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that 
 Law, and the light of nature. For holy Srriplure doth set out unto 
 us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved." 
 If the word accursed were left out of this article, and one of less 
 bitterness introduced, we should not hesitate a moment to subscribe 
 to it. The doctrine of the article is certainly true. Bishop R. 
 will take cnre noi to subject himself to the anathema here de- 
 nounced. How tiicn can he hesitate to admit that the heathen will 
 much more probably become holy, and be saved through Christ, 
 when they have Bibles to tell them of Christ, and the way of sal- 
 vation, than when they have none? Why not send them the Bible 
 then? But bishop R. seems disposed to wait for God's time! — 
 Who would have expected this, from so zealous an anti-calvinist? 
 
168 Review of Bishop Ravenserofi* s Vindicatioil and heftnca. 
 
 Well, wonders never will cease. We ask, are cliristians at liberty ^ 
 with the command of God, "preach the gospel to every creature, ' = 
 sounding in their ears, to sit down and say " God's time has not yet 
 come ?" Does not bishop R. know of what doctrine this is the 
 abuse ? 
 
 But let us compare the bishop's opinions concerning the heathen, 
 with those which he has expressed concerning Jmen?crs. 
 
 THE HEATHEN. 
 
 "His (God's) iincovenanted mer- 
 cies are towards and over them, and 
 I DOUBT NOT, tliat many a lieathen 
 will rejoice before God forever; ivhile 
 christians ivith the Hible, luill be hoivl 
 ingin everlasting' darkness." — [ Tliesr 
 christians with ihe Bible, are we pre- 
 sume dissenters. But he may also 
 include impenitc-nt and wicked Epis- 
 coRalians.l 
 
 DISSENTERS. 
 
 "To be entitled to tliat mercy en 
 the only safe ground, his revealed 
 word, we must be found within the 
 rule which includes it as a covenant 
 stipulation. Of any other state or 
 condition different from this, we can 
 SAT NOTHING, because we know no- 
 thing. There .may be tnerci/, but it ie 
 not rt vented." f Mecklenburg Ser- 
 mon.J In appl3ing the conduct of 
 the Apostle to the case of diaaentere, 
 and the conduct oi clergymen towards 
 ihem, he says, 
 
 " Does he acknowledge the teach- 
 ers, who had thus disturbed the har- 
 mony of the church, and sown the 
 seeds of contention and strife among 
 them, as fellow laborers with him in 
 the gospel, or does he severely con- 
 demn them, and charge them as min- 
 isters of Satan ?" — lb. 
 
 "For such there may be mercy; 
 but it is no where revealed." Vin- 
 die, pa. 31. 
 
 Here then we have a fair view of this christian bishop's opinions 
 respecting non-episcopalians and the heathen. For the former, 
 there may be mercy, but it is not revealed; and concerning their 
 state he can say nothing, because he knows nothing; but respecting 
 the latter he doubts not of the salvation of many ! Whence this 
 caution on the one side; and this confidence on the other? Surely 
 bishop R. does not pretend that mercy bus been revealed and 
 promised to the heathen, while there is nothing promised to poor 
 dissenters! This, gentle reader, is the man who on pa. 32, of his 
 Vindication, sneers at christians, who, he says, " profess to be ac- 
 quainted with the secret decrees of Ahi.ighty God." By the way, 
 they profess no such thing. But how far is bishop R. from making 
 this profession, when he doubts not about the heathen? 
 
 But there have been, and there are, in the world, hundreds of 
 thousands of professing christians, who with all their heart sub- 
 scribe to the c/ocirjna/ articles of the Church of Ensjliuid — and who 
 differ from Episropalians, only as to the matter of diocesan bishops, 
 and some points of external administration: — They have their min- 
 isters, who teach the very doctrines embodied in the 39 Articles: 
 They have their sacraments, as signs and seals of the same righte- 
 ousness of faith, by which Episcopalians hope to be justitied:-- 
 They exercise the same repentance towards God; the same faith 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ: the same love to God and man;— They 
 
Jieview &f Bishep Ravemerqfl's Vindication and Defence. 169 
 
 have the same hope; rely on the same promises; prize the same 
 Bible; pray for the same blessings — Yet because they are separated 
 from Episcopalians by mere matters of order, they have no war- 
 ranted hope in any promised mercy, they mat/ be saved. But it is 
 uncertain. But as for the heathen, bishop R. knows so much of 
 what has never been revealed, as to have no doubt of the salvation 
 of many! If men's words indicate their opinions, then, we may 
 fairly conclude that he reckons dissenters to be in a worse condi- 
 tion than the heathen ! The heathen in their idolatry, more likely 
 to become holy men, than dissenters with the Bible ! — Monstrous ! 
 
 We would ask, however, how are the heathen saved? The 
 xviiith article above quoted, pronounces an anathema on all who 
 hold that men can be saved by the law or sect which they profess; 
 or in any way but by the name of Jesus Christ. This is scriptural 
 truth, for " There is none orher name given under heaven among 
 men, whereby they must be saved." In the economy of redemp- 
 tion, then, is not Christ the Head and representative of those who 
 are savt d by him — is he not the second Adam? Are not all made 
 alive in Christ, as all died in Adam? Do any but covenanted mer- 
 cies, then, flow to the children of men? As for ourselves, we be- 
 lieve that there is a relation existing between Christ and the whole 
 human family; and that in consequence of this relationship, every 
 blessing, whether spiritual or temporal, which man has ever en- 
 joyed since the fall of Adam, has been granted to him. We have 
 no idea of uncovenanted mercies extended to any of our sinful 
 race. As to the salvation of the heathen we say nothing. Except 
 that they can only be saved through Christ — None can go to hea- 
 ven unless they are made holy. Truth is the instrument of sanc- 
 tification; and faith the way of applying the merit of Christ. And 
 there we leave this matter. But it is with the conviction that the 
 Bible may be a great blessing to the heathen — and that Christians^ 
 as they can, ought to send it. 
 
 But it is time to return to our subject. The reasons advanced 
 by the bishop to show, that the Bible Society encourages schism 
 and heresy and division without end, so entirely rest on assump- 
 tions which we have shown to have no foundation, that even a 
 child might detect the lallacy of his logic. 
 
 We are almost ashamed of having spent so much time in coming to 
 the conclusion to which all our preceding remarks conduct us — 
 Therefore the Bible Society does not tend to the subversion of re- 
 vealed religion. It would have been much easier for us to have 
 adverted to a number of incontesfible facts to refute the grand ob- 
 jection of the bishop against the Bible Society. Facts are the best 
 reasons in the wo-ld. We are truly sorry that our bishop did not 
 resort to them, rather than try his hand at sylloijisms. They might 
 have brought him to conclusions very ditferent from those which he 
 has formed. We beg leave to state a few as arguments against the 
 position that the Bible Society tends to the subversion of all re- 
 vealed religion. 
 
 1. All the discordant opinions and divisions, schisms and heresies, 
 which now exist; were in existence before the organization of the 
 Bible Society. We do not know any exception, but that of a schism 
 
iro Review of Bishop JtaveuscroJVs Vindication and Defence, 
 
 effected within the bishop's diocese, by a strange set of people 
 calling themselves Reformed Baptists. These people are in deadly 
 hostility to the Bible Society. Shall we congratulate the bishop 
 on this new ally? — Perhups here is the fruit of his labor in writing 
 his Vindication! This schism then, as well as all the rest, cannot 
 be attributed to the Bible Society. 
 
 2. It is well known that the darkest period in the church, from 
 the era of the Reformation to the present day, was'that which oc- 
 curred between 1780, and 1804. In popish countries, infidelity 
 was triumphant. In protestant lands, it was bold and daring; while 
 piety was very low, zeal was cold, and what was then misnamed ra- 
 tional religion, was rapidly gaining ground both in established 
 churches, and among dissenters. The Bible Society has no blame 
 to bear on account of these wide spread and desolating evils. 
 
 In the midst of their prevalence, it appeared to the best and 
 wisest men, who bore the christian name, that something must be 
 done to honor the Bible and sustain the cause of Christ, to stem 
 the torrent of infidelity and save a sinking church. Among other 
 enterprises of christian benevolence; 
 
 3. The Bible Society was or-ianized. This was done in the 
 year 1804. Some years previously to this, a Society was estab- 
 lished on precisehj the same principle, for the benefit of the soldiers 
 and seamen of Great Britain, of which the Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury was the head. The very men in the church of England 
 whose piety, zeal, talents, and virtues have done most to redeem 
 her from the character of a mere secular establishment, were the 
 most active and decided friends of the New Society. We mention 
 first, the late Right Reverend Bielby Porteus, bishop of London — 
 a man whose name is never to be mentioned without a note of 
 honor ; — then the two Milners, a noble pair of brotl)ers — Simeon, 
 Cecil. Scott, Cooper, Dealtry, and many more. — This Society has 
 been in operation in England now twenty-two years and upwards. 
 It has extended into almost every country, in Europe, except Spain 
 and Portugal; and ought before this time to have produced, in part, 
 its appropriate effects. 
 
 4. There has been a revival of the Episcopal church in the 
 United States. There has been a great increase of [iiety and zeal 
 in England. The same is reported of Scotland. In France, where 
 the protestant churches had lost even tbe appearance of vital piety, 
 there are hopeful signs of revival. In Germany and Prussia where 
 the lowest forms of Socinianism, and even undisguised Deism had 
 corrupted the very ministers of religion, there are some prospects 
 of a return to the doctrines of the Reformation. A new light has 
 been kindled at Geneva. There is a wakening np of a spirit of 
 piety. — In a vvord, infidelity has been checked, greater honor has 
 been put on the word of God, greater efforts have been made to 
 raise up ministers of religion, more missionaries have been sent 
 abroad, means of promoting christian knov% ledge have been accu- 
 mulated. Episcopalians have loved their church as much, and Dis- 
 senters their Bible more. — Truly it is marvellous enough, that a 
 principle " demonstrably subversive of all revealed religion" 
 i^hould have been in active operation more than twenty years, and 
 
Review of Bishop ISavenscrojVs Vindicaiion and Defence. \7i. 
 
 that opposite effects, should have been produced ;dl the time! f ndee J 
 the Bible Society is surprisingly slow in exerting its destructive en- 
 ergies, especially as the organ of destructiveness was fully devel- 
 oped at the very birth of the institution. "■ This no comment 
 principle, this crusade ag.unst revealed religion," (as the bishop 
 with beautiful metaphorical contusion terms it) after all turns out 
 to be very harmless. — Harndess! This Society is carrying on a 
 holy warfare against tlie powers of darUnnss; is doing its part in 
 that enterprise of love, which, as tar as facts go to warrant a con- 
 clusion, will result in making tho saving health of the Almighty 
 known to all nationse. Facts ought to make this most contident of 
 reasoners, suspect the soundness of his logic. 
 
 But our Anti-biblist has not told us distinctly what he would have, 
 in place of t!ie Bible Society. We know, indeed, that he would 
 have all Episcopalians to unite, as with one heart, in sending the 
 Bible, Church, Ministry and Sacraments, to the destitute. Very 
 well! But what shall non-episcopalians do? Love the Bible so 
 much as to labor to promote epis«opacy, which they cannot find in 
 the Bible? This is a compliment, which they would be as unwilling 
 to receive, as the bishop would be to give. It would be the height 
 of cruelty to sit still and wait, until Episcopalians could send the 
 Bible, vvith the Church, Ministr)! an<l Sacraments, to all the world; 
 and the height of extravagance to expect, that the great body of 
 Protestants will give up those principles, which they have consci- 
 entiously derived from the word ot God, and go over to compara- 
 tively a s nail party, who have separated themselves from the com- 
 munion of their Protestant brethren. Well what is to be done.' 
 Why, as Episcopalians have united, (we suppose on bishop R.'s 
 plan) so Presbyterians would unite, and Methodists, and Baptists, 
 and Congregationalists, &,c. &c. : And the world would see as many 
 different societies formed to send Bible, Church, Ministry and Sa- 
 craments to the destitute, as there are denominations in the chris- 
 tian world. And as these different associations would be formed on 
 the express principle of proselytism, what a great "scramble" 
 there would be! Whether it would be honorable, let our bishop 
 judge. The effect of a plan, such as we suppose that of our Anti- 
 biblisl must be, would be wonderfully striking, and doubtless over- 
 whelming to Deists, Turks, and Hindoos. Every distinct society, 
 adopting the bishop's principle, must send out comments. We 
 should then have Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, 
 Methodists, Quakers, Universalists, Unitarians, Swedenbergians, 
 Shakers, &c. &c. all rusliingout loaded with comments. The Epis- 
 copalian would say, here take my Bible — Mant and D^Oyley will 
 make all as plain as the Catechism; the Presbyterian would cry 
 out, no! Henry is the man to teach you the whole truth; the Me- 
 thodist vvouhl bring Adam Clarke; the Baptist Gi7/'s Commentary, 
 in nine quartos; the Quaker would thrust in Barclay's Apology; the 
 Shaker would push it aside by a copy of "the Millennial Church;'' 
 and the Unitarian would wag along with his wheel-barrow load of 
 the Fratres Poloni— And surely unbelievers of every form must be 
 convinced and converted! The missionaries, too, of each sect, sent 
 forth to defend and propagate "opposite systems of religious belief,' 
 
17.2 Heview of Bishop Uaveuscrofi*s Viiidicati§u and Bejend. 
 
 \\'o\x\'\ have a sort of glatliator's combat wherever they might meet; 
 for the confutation of the enemies of the christian faith. Such must 
 be the results of bishop R.'s phm, carried out fully — unless he with 
 the aid of Vincentius Lirinensis could succeed, and produce, what 
 never has yet been accomplislied, uniformity in religion. — We think 
 it mii^ht be gr.nted to us, as Mr Law says, that this is not the best 
 way to promote the kingdom of the Redeemer. 
 
 Before we leave this important subject, there are several parti- 
 culars demanding our notice, which we could not bring under any 
 of the heads of argument previously considered; and therefore must 
 take them up separately. 
 
 The first occurs pa. 89. We advert to it, because it is connected 
 with a considerable number of those personalities, which so much 
 disfigure the bisliop's book. Our Reviewer had said, 
 
 «* Now while the hearts of millions, are rejoicing in this " era of good 
 feelings," and thanking God ttiat sectarian coldness is warmed and melted 
 by this new display of fraternal love ; we hear this Bishop and the other, in- 
 terposing and saying, no, we cannot unite with you, unless you will join the 
 IJook of Common Prayer with the Bible ! unless you all become Episcopa- 
 lians and join with us, we cannot have any connexion with such Societies." 
 
 On this Bishop Ravenscroft allows himself to speak thus, 
 
 " And pray sir, is this the objection taken in my Sermon to the Bible So- 
 ciety principle ? Is the separation of the Book of Common Prayer from the 
 Bible, in its distribution, given as the reason why I cannot warm myself at 
 this genial source of sectarian fervor ? Or is this one of Dr Rice's charitable 
 fabrications, to catch his readers ? Certainly sir, I am free to acknowledge, 
 for myself, that Christ's Religion forbids me to have fellowship with, or to 
 countenance in any way, either men or measures, which I conscientiously 
 believe to be Injvuious to the interests of revealed religion, even if that in- 
 jury shall proceed from well meant, but mistaken intention to serve it. But 
 I cannot allow you, or any other person, to attribute motives to my conduct, 
 without contradiction, which are notoriously false, as is the case in the pre- 
 sent instance." 
 
 In relation to the same subject, the writer uses the words "bare- 
 faced perversion," "false and unfounded statement," "wilful per- 
 version," and similar expressions. See pp. 9, 10. 
 
 Let our readers consider what we say, in the following remarks. — 
 It is undeniable that, when bishop R. says the Church, he means the 
 Episcopal Church; and that when he refuses to acknowledge us, it 
 is because we are non-episcopalians. He says indeed, that it is be- 
 cause we hr>ve not derived authority from Christ, through the Apos- 
 tles, by a verifiable succession: but he believes this because we are 
 non-episcopalians; for he is sure that episcopalians have this au- 
 thority, while no others have. We do not claim to be ministers, 
 and administer sacraments, withoat believing and proving too, that 
 we have derived just as much authority from Christ as bishop R. 
 has. But we support our claim to a true ministry, and verify the 
 Church, in a manner different from that by which bishop R. does. 
 He affirms that episcopal succession is indispensable to the consti- 
 tution of the gospel ministry, and that this succession is essential to 
 ihe being of the church. We hold the necessity of a ministry, but 
 deny that it is necessarily constituted in the way the bishop sup- 
 poses. We always admitted hi-? sincerity: aud never charged him- 
 
Jteviexv of Bishop Jlavcuscrqft's Vindication and Defence. ITJ 
 
 with denouncing all non-episcopalians, and separating from them, 
 on what he acknowledges to be mere matters of form and outward 
 observance. But while we admit his sincerity, we think that we have 
 shewn his error. He holds that to be essential, which is not essential. 
 And our charge against him amounted just to this, that he allowed 
 himself to be so blinded by sectarian feelings, that his mind, natu- 
 rally acute and vigorous, could not see, in a case so plain, the dif- 
 ference between essential truths, and matters which we, in common 
 with millions of others, hold to be non-essential. And in this case, 
 this is the head and front of our offending. 
 
 In the next place, in regard to the book of Common Prayer, the 
 separation of which from the Bible we assigned as a reason why bi- 
 shop R. opposed the Bible Society, we have several things to say. 
 But be it observed, that heretofore, whenever we have spoken se- 
 verely or lightly of bishop R. it was in his character as an author. 
 Personall}', we meant to treat him with respect. Now, we address 
 him as a man, and call on him before his God, and tlie christian 
 community, to say, whether, if the Bible Society of America and 
 that of Great Britain, with all their auxiliaries, had been formed 
 for the sole, unalterable purpose of distributing the Bible and the 
 Book of Common Prayer, this would not have prevented all his 
 objections to the Institution? We verily believe that it would. ' We 
 have paid some attention to the controversy; and we cannot doubt 
 that every Episcopalian, who has taken a part in it, both in this 
 country and in Europe, would have hailed this Union of individuals 
 of so many denominations, in the distribution of the Prayer Boole 
 with the Bible, as the greatest triumph which the Episcopal church 
 ever enjoyed. And this, on the expectation that the various de- 
 nominations were in a fair way to become united with the Church. 
 If we are right here, how "naughty" was bishop R. in using to- 
 wards us the bitter words, which we have quoted! 
 
 But farther: it is not easy to analyze the bishop's words, and tell 
 exactly what he means by sending "the church, ministry, and sa- 
 craments with the Bible." The church "is a company of faithful 
 men" — How was that to be sent? The ministry means either the 
 office of a gospel minister, or the body of ministers in general. 
 The sacraments are, Baptism and the Lord's supper. These must 
 all be sent. Well, we wishing to put the best meaning we could on 
 the bishop's language, inquired whether he did not intend, that 
 with the Bible, men should be sent duly authorized to organize 
 churches, and administer sacraments? To this we found only one 
 objection, but a formidable one. It may be thus stated as it passed 
 •through our minds. There are in Great Britain and Ireland about 
 twenty-two millions of souls, and ten thousand Episcopal clergy- 
 men. In the United States the population is twelve millions, and 
 about three hundred i)reachers of this denomination. There are 
 very few in all the world besides, except Roman Catholics. Let 
 the population of the world be stated at nine hundred millions. 
 Then duly authorized Protestant clergymen are to be provided for 
 about eight hundred and fifty millions of souls. It would require 
 more than a thousand years to afford this supply, at the rate of a 
 thousand additional clergymen a year, But let us take our own coun^ 
 
174 Heview of Bishop Jtavevscroft^s Vindicalion and Defence. 
 
 (ry. The population is doubling tvory iwofity-five j^enrg. There 
 are srarcel}' ar.-one "?, then, (/;</// authorized dergymen enough to tra- 
 vel through tins wnle retii.::' i-s;) b tptizR the chilflren ;v- f:!st ■\^. Uiey 
 are born ; even should they do nothinjf else. i'he jjopulation is so 
 far ahead of the number of Episropal rlprgymen, that age? and 
 ages must elapse, before the rniinsl y ran bp sent with the word. 
 Multitudes nisj'-t die heatb(^ns, and multitudes more in a state, which 
 it now appears, bishop R. thinks more dangt^rous than heathenism. 
 But when, formerly, we had to determine. ;is well as we could, 
 what I.e meant, *ve could not possibly brinji ourselves to believe, 
 or ad it for a moment, that he bad sorb thmmhts respecting the 
 Bible, and its value to a lo>i world, as to wi-h that the millions and 
 millions, who have no access (. the word of liie. should remain so, 
 until Episcopal ministers could be rais.d up. and sent to them. — 
 This tbougbt ocnrred again and attain to oin m nils, but we rejected 
 it. We did suppose it ti be an act bi)tli ot kindn.'s> and ol justice, 
 then, o conclude, that by sending the church, ministry and sacra- 
 ments, the bishop me.uh sending surh "notes and comments" 
 (he himself uses the terms interchangeably) with the Bible, as 
 would enable the people to understand the nature and form of 
 the church, the true character of the ministry, the vi'ae and 
 efficacy of the sacraments, so tliat when stirred up to seek the sal- 
 yation of their souls, they would unite themselves with the Epis- 
 copal church. That Episcopalians sincerely and honestly think 
 the Book of Common Prayer excellently adapted to this end, we 
 have no manner of doubt. Indeed it is set forth for the very pur- 
 pose (in part) of giving instruction as to the true doctrines of the 
 Bible, in relation to the church, ministry, and sacraments. But 
 thousands and thousands of copies of tlie Common Prayer can be 
 printed and distributed, while one man is bein_ trained for the min- 
 istry of the gospel. The case then was this: we must either say 
 that bishop R. means to destroy the Bible Society, and let the world 
 wait for the slow growth of the Episcopal Church; that is, he must 
 be willing that millions after million> should die without any of the 
 means of grace, and with no prospect of a supply but in the tardy 
 incriase of the Episcopal Chur( h : or be means to send with the 
 Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, which embodies in his judg- 
 ment, the true doctrine of scriptuie respecting the church, ministry 
 and sacraments; and this as the best thing that can br done, in the 
 present state of the church and the worUI. We did not then know 
 how favorably the bishop thought of the heathen; nor how low tvas 
 his opinion respecting the Bilile alone. We therefore gave that in- 
 terpretation to loose, indeterminate lani;nage, which we supposed 
 did most justice to bishop K.'s character for zeal, and earnestness 
 in doing good. We thought the case, as we tried to understand it, 
 bad enough in all conscience. But the other is incomparably worse. 
 Now it is this most fivorable construction which we could put on 
 the bishop's language, which has called forth from him expressions, 
 which one gentleman never uses towards another, without intending 
 
 to give the highest possible insTilt! Let bishop R. be but we 
 
 leave it to hi.-^ own conscience to tell him what. We have already 
 said how we feel on finding that we had greatly "mistaken our 
 
Sc'Oiew of Bishop NavenscroJVs VindicuHon and Defenee. K j 
 
 man." But we have no rijfht to objp< I to bishop R.'s interpreting 
 his own Imignajie in his own way, and making his cause .i ti.onsand 
 fold worse than we ever thought of making it. Be it known, then, 
 that his principles lead him to tliis — that it is better for the heathen 
 to continue ,is they are, than for thi^m to recfive the Bible alone, or 
 christi mity in the form in vvhi(-fi Dissenters hold it. When princi- 
 ples I ;id Olio to such conclusions, is it not higti time for him who 
 holds lii-m to *us>)(-ct that he has fallen into grievous error? 
 
 As to t!ie v;i'iou> other personalities-, whi li occur in this work, 
 we cannot notice ttiem. It would I>p easy for us to go one hy one 
 through them, and show that bishop R. charges us wrongfully, but 
 this would require the reader to travel through many a wearisome 
 pa<re, and ifter all it would not settle the points of controversy be- 
 tween us. 
 
 In defence of the Bible Society, ive had said, that it was of un- 
 speakable import. ince. that the whole influence of the Protestant 
 world should be f,.dt by Roman Catholics, M.ihomedans, and Pagans; 
 and that it was better that the people should have the Bible with 
 any interj)! eter-. or none at all, thin be without the word of truth. 
 Ou this, the bishop exj-i esses him^?lf in sucii terms, that if he were 
 not a bishop, we should s;iy he raves. He calls this niDnstrous; and 
 represents us as holding, "that it is of no consequence whether the 
 Bible be truly or filsely interpreted." We only mention this hewv- 
 ever for the sake of giving another specimen of our author's bad 
 logic. Our meaning plainly is, that the fundamental truths of the 
 Bibl^ are so clearly revealed; the way of salvation made so plain, 
 that whether with or without an interpreter, the sincere inquirer 
 after truth will not mistake them. It is theiefore, in any event, 
 better that a man should have a bible, than that he should not have 
 it. And this is changed into a declaration, that it is of no conse- 
 quence whether ri man derives truth or error from the Bible! 
 
 Take another specimen of bad logic. VVe had said, it was under- 
 Stood, that e;ich separate denomination might, without let or hin- 
 'drance, promote Christianity according to their own creeds and con- 
 fesMons — meaning thereby, every body knows that all denominations 
 may go on to inomote their peculiar opinions, just as though the Bi- 
 ble Society had never been formed, and therefore there could be 
 no reasonable objection to their uniting to di.«tribute the Bible, the 
 common source of religious truth. On this bishop R. allows himself 
 to say (pa. 87.) "It is understood, that is, it is tacitly agreed upon, 
 that each separate denomination is to find no let or hindrance in pro- 
 moting Christianity according to his own views." Tacitly agreed on 
 is bishop R's ;loss on our words. We do not pretend that in this 
 case, he wilfully changed our meaning. Far be that irom us. But 
 we do much wonder, that he knew no better. If there were no Bi- 
 ble Society, all denominations would promote Christianity in their 
 own way; and no one lould hinder it. The Bible Society does not 
 change this state of things; and if the Bible alone is really a good 
 thing wiiy should not dl the people in the world have it? Will the 
 destruction of the Bible Society cause divisions and distractions to 
 cease? Will it make churchmen and dissenters love each other more? 
 Will Infidels and Pagans then have no cause to jeer christians, and 
 
17i3 Review of Bishop llavenscroft's Viiidicaiion^aml Dejence. 
 
 say, "First agree among yourselves what your relijrion is; and theu 
 persuade others to enmbrace it?" Will Papists no longer reproach 
 Protestants with their "Variations?" We repeat; all these divis- 
 ions existed before the Bibh^ Society. But amidst them, one point 
 of union was discovered. Was it nothing to show to the world, that 
 they who profess to derive their relij^ion entirely from the Bible, 
 have confidence in li>e Bible? Was it nothing to show the heathen 
 that there is christian benevolence enoujjh to "^end them that book, 
 which is able to make men wise unto salvation? 
 
 We maintained in our former Review, that our principles do by 
 no means nullify t!ie ministry of the gospt;l, and thf sacraments of 
 the church. . "Bishop R. ende u'ors to show (pp. 07, 88.) that we 
 are inconsistent vvith ourselves: and on pa. 91, he brmi;? under this 
 charge, the General Assembly of the Piesbyterian Church, and an 
 excellent brother of ours, the Reverend Dr Miller, of the Theolo- 
 gical Seminary in Princeton. 
 
 "Yet Ur Rice cannot but know, that in resorting' to this trick, indeed, in his 
 entire defence of the Bible Socii )y principle, he is liable to be cr^nfronted 
 with the highest authority of bis own tlenomination (the General Assembly) 
 in favor of the Westminster Contessitin of Faith, as indispensable to a right 
 understanding of the Bible; and also with the recorded opinion of a brother 
 Divine and Theological Professor, in favor of creeds and confessions — in 
 other words, expositions and comments as csscntiul to the nnity and purity 
 of faith in the church. How these solemidy considered and authoritative 
 sentiments of his own church, are reconcilable with the support of the «no 
 comment' principle, is for Dr Hice to make out ; and to assist him in this 
 difficult job. Bishop R. refers him to the recantation by the General Assem- 
 bly of 1825, of the sentiments published in 1824, and to Dr Miller's l.etter 
 on Bible Societies, subsequent to his published Lecture on the utility of 
 Creeds and Confessions." — p. 91. 
 
 As for ourselves, vve only say a sick man will he more likely to 
 recover, if a physician perfectly acqu.unted with his case, should 
 send him medicine, and a plainly written prescription. But this is 
 not at all inconsistent with the opinion, that the sick man might 
 do much better, if the physician could visit him, examine the symp- 
 toms, and then prescribe. 
 
 As for the General Assembly — that venerable body did. in the 
 year 1824 give a testimony in favor of Creeds and Confessions. 
 The Assembly of the following year, referred to that testimony as 
 sufficiently decisive, without the repetition of similar sentiments. 
 To call this a recantation, is saying that an affirmative is a negative. 
 But in the Annual Report of the state of religion, drawn up by a 
 committee, and adopted by the Assembly, we find the following dec- 
 laration respecting the American Bible Society, "i'lie American 
 Bible Society we regard, under God, as the glory and defence of 
 our land. We share in its blessini^s, and, in our measure, in its 
 support. As will be seen from the Report of its operations for the 
 last year, its sphere of influence has been constantly enl.irging." 
 
 "The nature of the service in which it is employed, and the 
 multiplied testimonies which are from day to day allorded of its 
 vast benefit to our country and our continent, bespeak a presence 
 in it, which no created power can safely resist." 
 
 "To oppose this institution is to fight against God, and yet we have 
 seen intidels., and half reformed protestanls, uniting with the papal 
 
Review of Bishop JtavenscrojVs Vindieaiion and Defence. 17 f 
 
 Iliernrchy, in opposing the circulation of the word of life, as though 
 the volume which Jehovah has adapted to the constitution of man, 
 and sent down from above for his use, and made efficient if^ his 
 redemption, and commaniled to be given unto him, could not with 
 safety be committed to his hands." Perhaps this is what the bishop 
 calfs n recantation. The reverend Dr Miller maintains the utility 
 of Creeds and Confessions ; and is a warm friend of the Bible So- 
 ciety. Bishop R. thinks this a great inconsistency. We will tell 
 him an anecdote. There is now living, we hope, a clergyman of 
 the Church of England, nnmed Simeon. The bishop of North Ca- 
 rolina has no doubt heard of him. Perhaps he owns a work of his 
 commonly called Simeon s Skeletons. It is intended to assist preach- 
 ers in the Composition of Sermons. This MrSimeon delivered at 
 Cambridge, some years ago, and afterwards published a short course 
 of sermons on " The Excellency of the Liturgy :" This is thought 
 quite an able work. But when he came to publish, the Preface of 
 this very volume contained a defence of the Bible Society — that is, 
 accorduig to Bishop R. Mr Simeon wrote a book ; and theri a pre- 
 face in the way of recantation ! But hOw is it, that the bishop can- 
 not see that there is here nothing like inconsistency. Will he who 
 thinks that he knows so well how to distinguish things that differ, 
 be so good s^s to point out the contradiction between the following 
 positions. — A good bed, a careful nurse, suitable medicine, and a 
 skilful physician, are useful and necessary for a sick man. — Suitable 
 medicuie, with the prescription of a skilful iihysician, are useful and 
 necessary for a sick man ? The positions are different, because 
 one contains more than the other. Bishop R's whole reasoning on 
 this subject is like this — Bed, nurse, medicine and physician are 
 useful and necessary, but medicine is not useful or necessary. He 
 says a thing, and then contradicts apart of it. And his saying amounts 
 just to this. If a physician cannot go and see a sick man, he must 
 not send him medicine and a prescription, lest he fall into mistake, 
 and destroy himself; — people are so stupid and ignorant, they will be 
 as apt as not to swallow the Spanish flies, and make a plaster of the 
 calomel ; and therefore they must be left to themselves, to use 
 their own quack nostrums. I doubt not many ofthem will recover; 
 but if you send them medicine they will probably die. 
 
 Bishop R. thinks it " a pitiful quibble — miserable sophistry," to 
 say that the Bible Society was not formed to interpret Scripture. 
 We, however, have such confidence in the intelligence of our rea- 
 ders, as to be perfectly willing to leave this matter to their judg- 
 ment. 
 
 In pages 91, 92, 93, we have a deatribe on christian benevo- 
 lence, which we do not think it wortli while to notice ; as our rea- 
 ders must before this time have been convinced, that they could 
 learn nothing on that subject from the work before us. 
 
 In concluding this part of the pamphlet, bishop R. notices three 
 particulars in our Review, in such a way that we must notice them 
 also, 
 
 "The first is, the repeated insinuation, and occasionally the direct asser- 
 tion, that the doctrines laid down in my Sermons on the subjects of the 
 Churcli aMd Ministry, and in the two last particularly, are-of a character too 
 i nearly akin tr Popery, to suit the meridian of Protestant America,' " 
 
i'S heview of Bhhop Ravemcrqfl's Vindicatpm and Defence. 
 
 " What purpose this insinuation is intended to answer, be-vond 
 that of profiiiiifi by iMe prejudice it may serve to excite and con- 
 tinue against the Episcopal church, you bi'«t know." — The bishop 
 here again reminds us of the anerdote of Diogenes, before rehited 
 He is just as widfofthe mark as Uf well cm be. On. motives are 
 such as we shall nev*'r lie a-^hamed to avow before the world. We 
 do most assuredly bi'li< v< in, it the Episcopal chiirc'ii ;s not necessa- 
 rily hij^h church. On the contrary, we have no doubt that high 
 church notions have, iioin the .lay-s of Land until the present time, 
 been injurious to its b A intt-rest^. And allh niiib there are several 
 things in its forais and oii|«;-. which we tl ink at . rianre with the 
 Scriptures, yet we believe that the great doctrines of the Kefoi-.-na- 
 tiou are eml>odied in its Liturii;y and Ai tiiles. We have therefore 
 loved and honored it as a bianrh of the true church, and have 
 often prayed tor its purity and prosperity. VVe however did be- 
 lieve, and do ye? believe, that tb-' opinions which prompted bishop 
 R. and others t'> oppose the Bil)l ■ Society, are akin to Popery : that 
 they make a part of that system by whi'h, in former limes, the 
 church was corrupted, until it ceMsd to be a true cliur( h, and be- 
 came what is so slrikina;ly described in the Homily for Whitsunday 
 before qi oted. But really, we did not b»lieve that bisliop R, un- 
 derstood his own pnofiples, or saw tiieir tendency. We therefore 
 frankly stated our views ; not for the purpose of exciting pi^-judices 
 against the Episcopal churcb — we indignantly repel the insinuation 
 — but for the purpose of ex' iting opposition among all, Episcopa' 
 Hans as well as others, to high churct. principles — and, (delur venia 
 verbo) not without some hope that our exhibition might startle 
 bishop K. himself, anfl lead hio) to reconsider his opinions. So 
 much had we mist iken our man! But have we also mistaken the 
 real character of the Episcopal church? Does bishop R. repre- 
 sent it truly ? If "0 ; tii^n the Episco});d church is.diin to Popery. 
 We place the matter on this issue. Do Episcopalians generally 
 adopt the principles laid down by the bishop ; and, however they 
 may condemn the spirit in whicli his book is written, dc they think 
 its reasoning " unanswerable ?" Then tiiey do generally approxi- 
 mate to Popery. But we no more believe, that oui Ejiiscopal bieth- 
 ren do generally adopt these high church notions, tivan we doubt 
 about their affinities, and tendencies. Our convictions are about 
 the same on each side. We are sure thtt high church has a near 
 kindred to Popery : and we are about equally sure that the great 
 body oi Episcopalians in the United States are low churchmen ; 
 and as for the truly pious among them, we verily believe, that while 
 their hearts are with us, lliey abstain from communion with other 
 denominations, solely throngh respect tor their bishops and other 
 clergy. If this is riot so now ; then, by some secret agencies, a 
 very great change of opinion has taken place, ivithin the last twelve 
 or fifte.n years. 
 
 Our Reviewer had said, in substance that bishop R. was not 
 alone in his oppugnalion to the Bible Society, that bishops in Eng- 
 land and Scotland, the Pope and almost all the Romish bishops in 
 the world had preceded him in " this crusade"'' to rescue the Bible 
 '' Wc thank the blsliop for teaching us that word. 
 
Review of liishop RavtnscrofV s llndicaUon and Defence. IT J' 
 
 Trom the abuses of Dissenters and Infidels ; and, alluding to the fact 
 just then made public, that the Roman Catholics had stimulated the 
 Grand Seignor to issue -a firman against the distribution of the Bible 
 iti his dominions, the Reviewer added that the head of the Mahom- 
 etan faith was almost at much opposed to the distribution of the 
 Bible, ai any Catholic or Protestant bishop can be. On this the bish- 
 op remarks, 
 
 " Now, sir,. will jou be pleased to come forward, and point out any Pro- 
 testant Bishop, either in Europe or America, who is opposed to the distri= 
 bution of the Bible. For this you must do, or stand convicted of fostering' 
 prejudice, at the expense of truth. And 1 speak thus plain, because the 
 case is of that sort wliich precludes mistake, as to the fact. You have said, 
 'that the Grand Seignor is almost as much opposed to the distribution of the 
 Bible in his dominions, as any Catholic or Protestant Bishop can be.' Un- 
 less, therefore, you can shew some Protestant Bishop, who is opposed to the 
 distribution of the Bible, as Roman Catholic Bishops are opposed to it, yoti 
 are justly chargeable as a false accuser of the brethren." — pa. 97. 
 
 We have a right to insist that our words should be construed ac- 
 cording to the establisherl rules of interpretation. We had all along 
 spoken of the distribution of the Bible, on the pririt;iple of the Bible 
 Society, without note or comment. We never dreamed that Pro- 
 testants, Papists or Mahometans would oppose the distribution of the 
 Bible with such notes and comments as they might choose to send 
 with it. VVe said over and over, in a way to give bishop R. mortal 
 .offence, but really without intending it, that he was willing to dis- 
 tribute the Bible with the Book of Common Prayer. Every prin- 
 ciple of fair construction, then, required that our words should be 
 taken in the meaning which our whole usage had given to them. 
 Every unprejudiced reader will see at once, that when we said Pro- 
 testants were opposed to the distribution of the Bible, we meant 
 " without note or comment." That is, we intended to state a fact, 
 in which bishop R. glories through the whole of his work. But ha 
 thinks fit to represent us as making the charge absolutely. Why he 
 should do this, except for the pleasure of resorting to " the coun- 
 terpart quarrelsome," we are at a loss to conjecture. However 
 this may be, we are willing to take him on his own ground — And 
 we now affirm that he is opposed to the distribution of the Biblej 
 " as Roman Catholic bi.sliops are opposed to it." In offering our 
 proof, we must be understood as speaking of the avomed reasons of 
 bishop R. and Roman Catholic bishops. 
 
 Bishop R, opposes the distribution of the Bible without note or 
 comment. But Roman Catholic bishops oppose it on the same 
 ground. Therefore bishop R. is opposed to the distribution of the 
 Bible " as Roman Catholics are opposed to it." 
 
 Has the bishop any objection to this syllogism ? Negatur Minor. 
 He denies the position respecting the Catholics. To the proof then. 
 The bishop of Rome is a Roman Catholic bishop, of some note and 
 authority in the church. A Re.«cript of Pope Fins vii, dated April 
 oth, 1820, addressed to the Vicars Apostolic of Great Britain ; con- 
 tains the following exhortation to {he faithf^il : " That they abstain 
 from the reading of the wicked books, in which, in these calamitous 
 times, our holy religion is on all sides attacked; and that they should 
 be strengthened in faith and good works, by the reading of f\om 
 
180 Review oj Bishop ItavcnscroJCs Vindication and TJefeucc. 
 
 books, and particularly the Holy Scriptures, in editions, ArpRoVEf 
 BY THE CHURCH ; you preceding them by \vord~and example." — 
 The following are the original words — Ut a perversorum librorum 
 icctione, quibns calamitosis hisce temporibus, sancta nostra religio 
 undique impetitur, al).stineant ; ut piorum librorum, prcesertim sac- 
 raruin scripturarum lec'tione^ in editionicus ab ecclesia ArpROBA- 
 Tis, in fide et in bonis operibus, vobis verbo et exemplo praeeunti- 
 bus, confortentur. But what sort of editions are approved by the 
 church. In answer to this question, we give the substance of the 
 Title of a New Testam"nt no v lyin;;; on our table. "Annotations 
 on the New Testamnnl of Jesus Clirist, in which, 
 
 1. The literal sense is explained accordmg to the expositions of 
 the ancient Fathers. 
 
 2. The false interpretations, both of the ancient and modern vvrit- 
 er-i which are cintrary to the received doctrine of the Catholic 
 Church, are briefly examined and disproved, &Cv By R. W. D.D. 
 With permission and ap[)robations This work was once, we 
 knovv. the property of a poor Irish Catholic. It was intended for 
 general use ; as it is published in conformity with the decision of 
 the council of Trent. Sess. iv. 
 
 The scriptures have b.-eii publislied in the vernacular tongue 
 again and again, by Roman Catholics. 
 
 "It is a common mi^^tuke :rriong Protestants, to suppose that the 
 Catholic laity .tre df'barri ,i the use of the scriptures, and that 
 the Catholic church never auUiDnzes my tran-l iiioi, of ihem 
 into the modern languages." Religious World Displayed. By 
 the Rev. Robert Adam, B.A. Oxford, ii, 82. [Vhe article fiom 
 which this extract is m;tde, was written by a Roman Catholic] 
 
 It is undeniable that the Roman C itholics do not avow opposi- 
 tion to the circu! alion of the scriptur.'S with such notes and com- 
 anents as the church approves. They avow the cor)trary. 
 
 It is worth while to consider ihe reasons by which they attempt 
 to justify their opposition to the distribution of tlie Edible alone. 
 The following extracts copied verbatim from some of the most res- 
 pectable English periodicals, afford some very curious coinciden- 
 ces. Hear how Roman Catholics speak in opposition to the Bible 
 Society. 
 
 "The general perusal of the Bible without any interpretation 
 iras in accordance, perhaps, with the desultory and capricious 
 genius of the protestant reliiiion; but in Ireland there existed a 
 creed utterly incompatible with the wild freedom of opinion ; and 
 Tvhich is so determinate and fixed, as to leuve no field for the exer- 
 die of individual jitdginenl in the construction of the word of God. 
 The Roman Catholic faitli is built on the si;riptures, as explained 
 hythe church, and if the lower classes were to peruse rhem vvithout 
 that explanation npon which their religion rests, it is not unlikely that 
 they would contract opinions inconsistent Toith the meaning invaria- 
 bly annexed by Roman Catholics — by the chuuch -to the holy writ- 
 ings — The whole dispute narrows itself into a question of fact. Is 
 it, (the circulation of the scriptures without note or comment) or 
 is not iaconsisteut with the spirit of Catholicism ? If it be, there 
 is a| end of the argument: at least it must be admitted that Roman 
 
Hevicw of Bishop RavenscroJVs Vindication and Defence. 181 
 
 Catholics arc justified in their strenuous opposition to an attempt to 
 subvert their religion ? 
 
 Another speaker against the Bible Society says, "He would now 
 ask which of the Bible reading gentlemen agreed in their faith ? — 
 He did not believe that any two of those he saw, held the same re- 
 ligious opinion. And, alluding to the Rev. Mr Noel of the English 
 Church, and Captain Gordon, who was a presbyterian, he asks, 
 "Did the young English gentleman and the Scotch Captain, who 
 came here as missionaries, hold the same faith ? — They travelled, 
 he supposed, in a post-chaise to overturn the Catholic religion — 
 How did these post-chaise companions agree on religious matters ? 
 Did they toss up for religion ? Or which of their religious tenets 
 i3)ere their converts to embrace ? 
 
 Once more : The following resolutions were drawn up by a dis- 
 tinguished Roman Catholic priest, to be adopted by an Anti-Bible 
 meeting. 
 
 "Resolved — That it appears to this meeting — that the free and' 
 indiscriminate circulation of the Bible, without note or comment 
 amongst our poor, constitutes the basis of the education, sanctioned 
 and supported by the London Hibernian Society." 
 
 Resolved, 2dly, That we consider such a system of education 
 
 CONTRARY TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER- 
 ESTS OF TRUE RELIGION, and Subversive of all order in civil soci- 
 ety.'' 
 
 Resolved, 3dly, That as good and sincere christians, and as loyal 
 subjects, we will resist with all our might, the establishment of such a 
 system among us, because we are convinced that it would substitute 
 eventually scepticism and infidelity in place of Christianity, and 
 anarchy and confusion in place of order and good government.'" 
 
 We could fill page after page with matters of the same kind. 
 But this is enough. Let our readers compare these extracts, with 
 bishop Ravenscroft's reasonings, and judge between him and us. 
 Is it "a forced and false construction," when we affirm that his opin- 
 ions are akin to popery ? He sincerely believes that they were 
 "the light of the reformation" — But in fact they are fundamental 
 principles, on which popery built its usurpations. And his old 
 rule, was a rule adopted when the man of sin had already begun his 
 work. 
 
 But the most amusing part of the whole work under Review, is, 
 that, in which an attempt is made to retort on the Bible Society 
 the charge of maintaining errors akin to Popery. This the bishop 
 is pleased to do in the words "of one of the vestry of the episcopal 
 church, Raleigh." He is "exceeding happy to inform us — for he 
 feels great comfort in it — that there are gentlemen and christians 
 in that vestry, to whose competent judgment we might safely com- 
 mit deeper things than our logic, and from whom even we might 
 derive an accession of knowledge, both on religious and other sub- 
 jects" — We doubt it not — and we are always glad to learn from 
 such as are able to instruct us. Let us hear then, 
 
 "The Romanists contend, that the Scriptures are confided exclusively to 
 the clergy ; that the laity are to receive implicitly, without inquiry or ex- 
 amination, -what is by them declared to be the trutli of these Scrirtures- 
 
182 li&viexv of JSisliop RavenscroJVs i^'indicaliou aad Defeiia. 
 
 To the people they give the Church and the Ministry, but retain for thenn- 
 selves the Scriptures. They therel)y separate the former from the latter, 
 and deny the people at large one of the most efficient means of grace. 
 
 "The doctrine of the Bible Society, involved in the rejection of comments 
 *'that the scriptures are exclusively sufficient," produces a like separation 
 %vith that of the Romanists ; the difference being, that the former give to 
 the people, the scriptures without the church, wliile the latter give to them, 
 the church and refuse the scriptures. In opposition to tlie latter error, the 
 reformers and standard writers of the Church, contended, because it was 
 the prominent error of their day. In opposition to the former, bishop R. 
 and those who think with him, contend, because it is tlie prominent error of 
 ©ur own time. The bishop, and tiiose who tliink with him, are perfectly 
 consistent in refusing to countenance tliese Bible Societies; because they 
 maintain, that all the institutions of God, designed as means of conveying, 
 and giving assurance of his favor to fallen man, should be communicated to 
 the people. That those things which he has united, should never be separ- 
 ated by a vain confidence, which rushes into tiie counsels of the Must High, 
 and acting as God, profanely elevates one of his institutions, by the depres- 
 sion of another. The bishop, and other opponents of the principle and 
 practice of these Bible Societies, unite, in condemning all separation of the 
 means of grace, one from the other; whether devised by the craft of Roman- 
 ists, or suggested by the mistaken liberality of the Bible Societies ; and in 
 affirming that the Gospel, as one in its doctrines, order and ministrations, 
 should be afforded entire to the people. 
 
 "They hold, that a true Church, in which the pure word of God is preach- 
 ed by those having authority thereto, valid administrations of the sacra- 
 ments, and the scriptures to be examined and read by all who can read 
 them, are together the sure means, prepared by divine wisdom for our salva- 
 tion. That in their union there is safety ,- in their separation there is daji' 
 .^•er. That separation of the one from the other is erroneous, whether it be 
 made by Protestants or Romanists, whether it be the result of designing 
 policy or uninformed benevolence — whether it be a corruption of the dark 
 ages, which benighted Christianity and learning, or a meteoric error, kindled 
 into a blaze in our own day, by the collision of different elements in reli- 
 gious belief, chafing themselves in an attempt at unnatural union." — pp. 99, 
 100. 
 
 Now to us, this appears, for all the world, like the argument of 
 an ingenious and acute lawyer, who knows that he has a bad cause. 
 If so, certainly much deeper things than our logic may be commit- 
 ted to this reasoner ; for the law we are told is a bottomless pit. 
 But let us look at the argument. 
 
 1. The first paragraph contains a statement, which we have just 
 shown to be maccurate. The Romanists profess to give to the peo- 
 ple "the church and the ministry," and the scriptures with their 
 expositions, their notes and comments — and in this high churchmen 
 are like them. 
 
 2. The Romanists profess to give to the people all tltat God ever 
 designed for them. — The Bible Society professes to give only a 
 part ; because they can give no more. — But this part is such that 
 it may well lead them to desire and seek the rest. 
 
 3. But let us admit that the Vestryman states his case accurately; 
 and that the Romanists do avowedly debar the people from access 
 to the scriptures, entirely — then the case is this : They say to the 
 people, we give you the church and the ministry ; but you are so 
 ignorant and perverse, you shall not have the bible lest you abuse 
 it to your destruction. 
 
 The Bible Society tays, "As the word of God contains the whole 
 "Tnth which God has revealed for the salvation of man, in terms so 
 
Jteview of Bishop JtavenscrojVs Vindicalidn and Defence. i83 
 
 plain, that all fundamental truths may be understood by all men, we 
 give you the bible. And as in the present divided state of the 
 christian world, we cannot bring all who profess the christian name 
 to unite in any other measure of charity, we send you the Bible 
 alone, which is "sufficient to make you wise unto salvation." 
 
 4. The church is a society formed for the express purpose of en- 
 joying; the ministry and sacraments as well as the word ; and with- 
 holding any part of tliese privileges is defeating the very purpose of 
 the organization, and violating the express coaimand of Christ. But 
 the Bible Society is a company, voluntarily formed under the gen- 
 eral influence of the law of love, and has nothing to do with the 
 church, ministry, and sacraments. fhe Roman church then, 
 which is bound to afford all the means of grace, says — here is a gift 
 of God which the people ahall not have. The Bible Society says, 
 — here is the gift of God, which we associated for the purpose of 
 giving — as for the rest it is not our business to do any thing with 
 them. Yet the Bible Society is akin to popery ! — There is a 
 famous piece of reasoning recorded in a book, which perhaps ever?/ 
 body has not seen, we therefore copy it here. 
 
 "If you look in the maps of the 'orld. you shall find, in the com- 
 parisons between Macedon and Monmouth, that the situations, look 
 you, is both alike. There is a river in Macedon; and there is also, 
 moreover, a river at Monmouth: it is called Wye at Monmouth, 
 but it is out of my prains, what is the name of the other river; but 
 'tis all one; 'tis so like as my lingers is to fingers, and there is salm- 
 ons in both." We beg pardon of Fluellen's ghost — his argument 
 is the best of the two. There is o. river in each country, and there 
 are salmons in both. But the Romanists authoritrttively take away: 
 while the Bible Society only does not give. The Bible Society like 
 the church of Rome! Indeed this is deeper than our Logic. 
 
 But in the next place, we have a word or two to say in defence 
 of our Reviewer, and the American bishops. 
 
 Bishop R. had written and published these words. "I have no 
 hesitation in asserting, that more than two, perhaps a majority of 
 the American bishops, are not in favor of Bible Societies, on the 
 principle adopted by the British and Foreign Bible Society, and 
 copied by a majority of those in this country. While, of those who 
 are known to have given them countenance, reasons and motives verj- 
 different from those of sanctioning such principles, have operated in 
 inducing them to have any connexion with such societies," Now 
 we honestly considered this a very unadvised declaration. It did 
 convey to our minds, an unintentional we readily admit, but severe 
 and very undeserved censure. It said this — that American bishops 
 acted publicly, before the world, in support of principles which 
 they could not sanction. It was said by a bishop — we know in the 
 heat of controversy. We wished that in cooler moments it might 
 be reconsidered, and unsaid. Regard for the honor of the christian 
 ministry made us earnestly wish it. 
 
 Pudet ha3c opprobria potuisse dici sed non potuisse refelli. For- 
 this purpose, we designed to let bishop R. see what use might ea- 
 sily be made of his unguarded expressions — at the same time de- 
 claring sincerely our opinion that reproaches of this kind would be 
 
184 Review oj Bishop ItavenscrqfV s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 unjust. We did not for a moment suspect that bishop R. meant any 
 thing derogatory to his brethren. But ive verily thought thai in his 
 haste, he had done to these venerable men vvhiit we would not have 
 done for the world — impeached their sincerity. Bishop R. could 
 not enter into our motives; he could not conceive of any thing but 
 hostility in one who o|)posed his peculiar sentiments; and therefore 
 in that tedious paroxysm o\' vvliich we spoke in the beginning, he 
 permits himself to write thus, 
 
 " Generous, candid, charitable man ! But as I am ahogether unwilling to 
 bear the reproach transferred to me, as the writ< r of the Note, I will just 
 say, that so far is it from being the plain meaning of tlie passage, that no one 
 would have made this use of it, who was not himself capable of all the per- 
 fidy which it implies. And so far from refraining from an assault, it is actually 
 made, and in that way too, which is well understood to be most effectual 
 with the uninformed and the prejudiced, by insinuation ot more than ap- 
 pears ; while the cunning disclaimer is put in as tlie loop-hole of retreat. 
 But, sir, it shall not answer your purpose— for I am happdy able to free 
 both the bishops and myself, from the injurious imputation of your implied 
 charge." — p. 101. 
 
 We quote this passage that our readers may join with us in pity- 
 ing and praying for Bishop Ruvenscroft. 
 
 The explanation and vindication of his remarks respecting the 
 bishops who are connected with Bible Societies, so f.r from being 
 satisfactory, makes the matter worse. "Reasons (says he, p. 102) 
 and motives perfectly innocent and even praiseworthy" — and yet 
 "very different from those (jf sanctioning such principles" present 
 themselves readily to every ingenuous mind:" — He then assigns "the 
 desire to conciliate — to soften the asperities of religious dissent, by 
 such concessions to prejudice, as can be made with a good con- 
 science" — and "such reasons and motives as these." Now, we are 
 not satisfied that the American bishops, connected with the Bible 
 Society, should rely on a defence as lame as this. Some of them 
 are zealous in its support — are presidents of societies formed on the 
 "no comment principle." Now, they approve the principle, or 
 they do not. If they approve it — as we must believe they do — they 
 act with the openness and sincerity of christians. If they disapprove 
 it; — surely it must be because the principle injuriously affects the 
 interests of religion. Does bishop R. mean that they act against their 
 real sentiments, on such a subject as this, to conciliate? Do evil 
 that good may come? Again, we sa} , if we were enemies, what oc- 
 casion for triumph would be here. But nol we disclaim, before the 
 norld, our belief that bishop R. has stated the true reasons for the 
 conduct of the prelates in question. Otherwise, what should we 
 have to say of such "scrambling for proselytes," as this? We have 
 a right to say farther, that all Epis« opalians, who continue their 
 connexion with the Bible Society, do not think the bishop's book 
 •■'unanswerable." He has not, in their judgment; proved that the 
 Bible Society is subversive of revealed religion. 
 
 We have not, even yet, given up all hope that bishop R. will be 
 a friend of the Bible Society. Our readers ina} think that this "is 
 hoping against hope." Among our reasons, one is that he has for- 
 gotten how far he was friendly to the Institution, while Rector of 
 St. James's parish in Mecklenburg. He states the case thus. 
 
Ikvieiv of Bishop Kavcmcrajt^s Vindication and JJcfenee. 18j 
 
 "The Rev. Mr Treadway, recently ordained a Deacon in the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church, was appointed an Assent of the Virginia Bihie Society, 
 at the instance of Bishop Moore, for the formation of Auxiliary Societies. — 
 Tn this capacity, he visited my then parish, and was received by me with all 
 the attention due to his clerical character, and was assisted in his particular 
 object, so far as introducing him to the people, and making appointments 
 for him to preach, and explain the views of the Society, from liie respect 
 due to my Diocesan. Mr Treadvvay having succeeded in obtaining a suffi. 
 cient number to form a Society, and a day being appointed for them to meet 
 at the court-house, and being hiiuself obliged to visit some other places in 
 the interval, he requested me to draw up a constitution and rules for the 
 regtdation of the Society. This [ assented to, as an accon.niodation to him, 
 and performed it by copying a printed form, which 1 found among some 
 loose pamphlets in my study. I believe also, that I gave a dollar, or some 
 small contribution to the Society — preached an extempore Sermon, to a 
 small congregation convened on an appointment made for Mr Treadway, 
 which he did not attend, and at a meeting of the Society to elect their offi- 
 cers, when only three or four attended, i ad\ ised, as the only probable means 
 of becoming organized, that the few who were present should name the 
 officers, and notify them of iheir election. The plan was agreed lo, and at 
 the icquest of those piesent, the nomination was made by m\selt, embrac- 
 ing all classes of religious profession m ihe count}, exctpi Episcopalians — 
 not one of whom was nominated to any office in the Society ; having previ- 
 ously refused to have any thing to do with its transactions myself. This is 
 the whole extent of ni) intromissimis with the formation of this Auxiliary, 
 or any otiier Bible Society." — p. 103. 
 
 Now we have not the lea^t doubt that bishop R. made this state- 
 ment according; to th*^ best of his recollection. Let no one saj that 
 we make an insinuation to the rontrar}) . But the record of the case 
 will refresh his memory. It sp(?aks thus, 
 
 1. The foilo>uiiii paper, to be subscribed by any who might be 
 willing to unite in a Bible Society, is attributed lo the Rector of St. 
 James. " Unwillinsj to view with indifference the providential 
 openina;s for the reception of the gospel at home and abioad, and 
 particularly among the aborigines of our country, and the united and 
 mighty efforts making in the promulgation of the sacred scriptures 
 throughout the continent, we whose naines are hereunto affixed, do 
 agree to form ourselves into an association to be denominated the 
 Mecklenburs; Bible Society, whose ?ole ol)ject shall be to co-operate 
 with the Bible Society of Virginia in encouraging a wider circula- 
 tion ofthe Holy Scriptures." Dated Se[)t. IGth, 1822. The first 
 name on this paper is that of 7. S. Ravenscroft. — Here is betokened 
 a feeling worthy ofa christian mi.n!ster. 
 
 2. On the 18th of Nov. 1822, the Constitution ofthe Society was 
 adopted, by a meetins;. of vvhich the Rector gave notice,* which he 
 attended, and at uhich he preached. The second Article of the 
 Constitution requires that the ;opies ofthe Bible shall be "in every 
 case unaccompanied with either note or comment." And the 13lh 
 Article provides that the second article shall be " unalterable." 
 
 It is said that particular stress was laid on the words, without note 
 or cotnment. 
 
 8. At this meeting, the Rector presided ; and thirteen managers 
 were chospn. of whom seven were Episcopalians, and the Rector 
 was one ofthe number. 
 
 4. On the 31st of March 1823, a meeting ofthe Society was held 
 at Boydton, and the Rev. John S. Ravenscroft attended. At this 
 
 * The narticidars about the notice, kc. are of course not in the Record, 
 
186 Review nf Bishop JRavenscroft^s Vindication and JJeJencc. 
 
 time, several resolutions of some importance were ndopted. It was 
 resolved that quarterly meetings should be held — that the constitu- 
 tion should be printed and distributed, &c. A gentleman of the 
 Episcopal church was also elected Treasurer of the Society, who 
 has, it is understood, performed his duty faithfully. 
 
 Bishop R. has never formally withdrawn from this Society. And 
 really, the Bishop and Rector do appear to have held contrary sen- 
 timents on this subject. Did be always believe that the Bible So- 
 ciety principle wtis subversive of revealed religion. Did respect for 
 his " Diocesan" prompt him, in the least degree, to encourage a 
 principle of such ruinous tendency ? Surely a Presbyter is not 
 bound to yield his convictions^ in this way to his bishop. And is Dr 
 Ravenscroft a man thus to submit his understanding and his consci- 
 ence ? Assuredly he is not. 
 
 But bishop R. thinks, that if an alteration in opinion had taken 
 place, we "• might have considered, that as the bishop's sphere of 
 observation, is necessarily far more extensive than that of the Rec- 
 tor, and his means of ascertaining the effects produced by such 
 bodies, much more ample, he had doubtless good reasons for an ac- 
 tual change both of opinion and conduct." We frankly confess, 
 that the opinion did cross our mind, that some hozv or otiicr, without 
 the gentleman's being at all conscious of it, the change of opinion 
 ,was connected with the change in otfice. But still we could not 
 attribute it to the causes hinted at by the bishop. For 
 
 1. The change was rather sudden for this. In 1823, the Rector 
 was acting manager of a Bible Society. In 1824, the bishop preach- 
 ed his famous Sermon. Now his new office ; bis removal ; the 
 multiplied and arduous duties of the station to which he was called, 
 seem to us to have been quite enough to occupy his whole attention. 
 But this is not all. 
 
 2. For the Bible Society, as before observed, is most surprising- 
 ly slow in accomplishing its work of (hvision and destruction. Since 
 its organization, there has certainly been a great increase of vital 
 piety. Infidelity has been repressed. Christians have been 
 brought into much greater harmony of feeling. All the facts, then, 
 both in Europe and America were agninst the bishop. It required 
 much more time for observation than one busy year, to discover 
 that the Bible Society tended to vndo that wluch it actually was 
 doing with a mighty and uncontrollable energy. The bishop, even 
 on his commanding eminence, could not possibly see "wljiitvvas not 
 to be seen." But it often happens, that a sudden elevation, by in- 
 ducing giddiness, makes the world appear to be whirling round, and 
 every thing to be turning topsy turvy, even when all is peaceful and 
 still, except i?i one''s own sensorium. 
 
 We do not write thus, because we take any pleasure in exposing 
 the inconsistencies of our author. We entered this sulyect with 
 great reluctance ; and have found it very unpleasant at every step. 
 But we were impelled by a sense of duty. We do believe that the 
 Bible Society is connected with that glorious event prayed for by 
 every pious Episcopalian, and by the whole church indeed every 
 day — the making known the saving health of the gospel to all nations. 
 But christians in the United States have not been roused to put 
 
lliv lew of Bishop HavenscroJVs Vindication and Bcfence. isr 
 
 forth half their strength in this cause of benevolence. Many are 
 ready enough to hold back for any excuse, however trivial. Bish- 
 op R.'s name and office gave him influence. Me has injured the 
 Bible cause. His opinions, if unchecked, vvill injure it still more, 
 as the Episcopal church extends among our growing population. It' 
 any suppose that we have been influenced by so poor a motive as 
 personal resentment for the bitter things which the bishop has said 
 against us ; or by party spirit, they do us crying injustice. Nothing 
 but public considerations of most imperative character have impel- 
 led us through the drudgery of this Review. And we must pursue 
 our work. Before heaven we utterly disclaim hostility to any 
 christian church. But to do justice to our subject, we must follow 
 the bishop through his system. It hangs all together. His notions 
 about the church, the ministry, the sacraments, and the interpreta- 
 tion of scripture, are closely connecteil with his opposition to the 
 Bible Society. And whoever thinks with him on these points, can- 
 not consistently be a cordial friend to that Society, which is at this 
 moment throwing beams of heavenly light athwart the gloom that 
 has been deepening foi- a thousand years ; which is shedding bless- 
 ings on fifteen millions of Christians groaning under Mahometan bon- 
 dage ; and is pieparing a high way for the servants of God, when 
 they go to carry all the means of grace, and all the precious privi^ 
 leges of the gospel to the benighted and perishing nations — We feel 
 that we are pleading the cause of Charity ; and doubt not that our 
 motives will one day be fully understood. 
 
 INTERPRETATTON OF SCRIPTURE. 
 
 In this part of his book, bishop R. undertakes the vindication of 
 Ills sermon on the interpretation of scripture. This is a subject of 
 great importance — but it would require a volume to treat it (ally. 
 We can only consider general principles. 
 
 In the first place our readers ought to have a fair state of the 
 question. Bishop R. holds that the one holy apostolical chur'h is 
 the Episcopal church : — That to this church were commi ted the 
 Word, Ministry and Sacraments — and that it belongs to l-ns church 
 authoritatively to interpret the )vord of God. Hence he concludes, 
 that it is unsafe — nay, ruinous to distribute the Bible, without such 
 notes and comments, as may enable the reader of Scripture to de- 
 termine the sense put on the sacred volume, by the one Catholic 
 and Apostolic Church of Christ. It is clear that the great object of 
 the bishop, in his sermon on the interpretation of scripture, is 
 to support his opinions respecting the Bible Society. And, as our 
 Reviewer remarked, in his several successive discourses, he devef- 
 opes his system. The (Episcopal) church can alone so inter- 
 pret scripture as to give to man the assurance of salvation. The 
 rule of interpretation about which we differ, in this part of the dis- 
 cussion, is derived from Vincentius Lirensis, a writer of the sixth 
 century. We have no access to his work; but the bishop lays down 
 the rule in the following terms: 
 
 ^'■That interpretation of scripture is to befolloTSued and relied vpon> 
 US the true sense and meaning, which has invariably been held avi 
 mtcd upon, by the one Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ." 
 9A 
 
188 Ileview of Bishop KaveiiscroJ't's yindicatioti and Defence. 
 
 Now it depencis entirely on the menning attached to these words 
 by bishop R., whether there is here any diflerence of opinion be- 
 tween him and us, worth farther disputation. If he means to say 
 that the Apostles of Christ taught the doctrine of their master so 
 clearly, that their disciples understood and received it; and that the 
 ascertaining of this doctrine, as received, settles at once all disputes 
 concerning it; then he and our Reviewer entirely agree. For there 
 is nothing wliich we more certainly hold, than that there are no 
 new discoveries on the subject of religion. The whole plan of sal- 
 Tation, as far as God has seen fit to reveal it, was fully taught by 
 the Apostles, and embodied in their writings. The disciples of the 
 Apostles certainly umierstood their meaning, and embraced their 
 doctrine. The point here is, to determine what this doctrine was. 
 We hold that this is most easily and certainly done by resorting to 
 the scriptures. For there we have tlie truth, expressed in the very 
 words dictated by the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of general iii- 
 Struction. 
 
 It is true that we have brief symbols of Faith drawn up for the 
 Use of the ancient church, going under the name of Creeds, as the 
 Apostles'' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. — 
 And these show with certaiiity, what was the belief of the Church, 
 respecting the particular articles contained in those formularies, at 
 the time when they were adopted. As to the first, we do not know 
 when it was composed: the two latter were drawn up in the fourth 
 century. But, when these Creeds are applied to the interpretation 
 of scripture, their character is chiefly negative. True, it may be 
 •affirmed that scripture was, in general, interpreted in conformity to 
 these Creeds: but when one goes to a particular passage of scrip- 
 ture, in most cases it can only be affirmed by a strict reasoner, that 
 it was not interpreted in opposition to the Creed. Now one may 
 know very well that a particular meaning was not attached to a 
 text, without knowing what its meaning really was held to be. . The 
 Creeds, too, are very general summaries of doctrine, and of course 
 there are hundreds of texts to which they cannot be made to apply. 
 The same remarks may, in substance, be applied to the decrees of 
 Councils. By a careful examination of the writings of the Fathers, 
 it is also possible, in many cases, to determine what opinion they 
 held concerning the doctrines brought into discussion by them. — 
 This, indeed, is not always so easy a matter; because these writers 
 are often very vague and undetermined in the use of language, and 
 not always consistent with themselves. Hence we find opposing 
 claims often put into the authority of the Fathers. 
 
 But it is wonderful that bishop R. did not perceive that his rule 
 as thus understood, applies to old controversies respecting Theo- 
 logical Doctrine; and not to the interpretation of Scripture. It is 
 Qne thing, to tell the meaning of scripture; and another to draw 
 out that meaning in a series of propoiritions expressing theological 
 truth. One is the business of the interpreter; the other of the 
 systematic writer. In regard both to one and the other, the Bible 
 is so plain, that for the most part, there is no danger that the sin- 
 cere inquirer will be mistaken. If there is difficulty or dispute 
 respecting doctrine, it is certainly an advantage to know what the. 
 
Ileview of Bishop Ravenscrqfi's Vindication and Defence. 189 
 
 early church held to be the doctrine taught by the apostles. Bui 
 this, except in a fevv cases, is a matter of extreme ditliculty; anil 
 not to be accomplished without the most diligent research. Wh<> 
 can give an instance, where the scripture is not clear, of a dispute 
 terminated by the authority of the Fathers? Romanists, Protest- 
 ants, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Paedo-baptists, all 
 claim them; and controversies are terminated, not by the convic- 
 tion of one party, but by the weariness of the combatants on the 
 public. Bishop R. knows this, as well as we do, and therefore 
 in the calm exercise of his judgment, he cannot but acknowl- 
 edge that the rule laid down by him, is merely an imperfect help 
 in ascertaining the true doctrine of the Bible. But as we under- 
 Stood him, and as the whole tenor of his sermon seemed to require, 
 the rule is authoritative. " That interpretation of scripture is to 
 be followed and relied on, &c. And in the reasoning contained in 
 pp. 106, 107, &,c. the same thing seems to be assumed: the ques- 
 tion as to the disputed doctrine or interpretation is to be submitted 
 to the judgment of the primitive church; and from this, there lies 
 no appeal. Authority cannot be more absolute. But in page 123, 
 the bishop says, "As clearly then, as can well be expressed, the 
 rule is given and is presented by me, as a help to private judgment ^ 
 as a safe guide to disputed truth, on a subject of the highest inter- 
 est." Now to us there appears an inconsistency between these 
 uses of the rule. There is a wide difference between a rule to 
 which my understanding must submit; and one which affords me aid 
 in making up my opinion. We have not the slightest objection to 
 use the rule in this latter sense; as our onn practice shows. And 
 we use it with a confidence proportioned to its adaptation to the 
 particular subject of inquiry. For illustration. 
 
 If the question in dis[)ute is one of simple, naked fact; and the 
 witnesses referred to were so situated, that they could not but 
 know the fact, we consider their testimony as of the greatest value. 
 If for instance we wish to determine the dispute respecting the 
 Baptism of the children of believers; we go first to scripture; and, 
 endeavoring faithful!)' to apply to them the principles of interpre- 
 tation, as we apply them to all other books, we ascertain as well 
 as we can what the word of God teaches. Here is the only 
 authority to which we ever submit. But that, which convinces us, 
 does not convince others. Well, if Christ appointed that the 
 children of believers should be baptized, no doubt the apostles did 
 thus baptize. Here then is a plain, palpable fact, in relation to 
 which mistake is not possible. We resort then to the early writers, 
 as witnesses. We sit in judgment, and weigh testimony; but do by 
 no means submit to authority. This testimony, when fairly ascer- 
 tained, we regard as of very great importance. 
 
 The case is precisely the same in regard to the Episcopal con-, 
 troversy. We go to the word of God: there we find ministers 
 with ordinary and extraordinary powers: those of ordinary pow- 
 ers, are clearly intended to be standing officers in the church: they 
 are called by various titles which are used interchangeably; bishops, 
 presbyters, stewards, &.c. &:c. We are convinced that, according 
 to the first pattern of the church, there was no distinction of rank 
 
1^0 Ret'iexv of Bishop Ravenscrofl's Vindication and VefeiicC. 
 
 or order in the family of Christ. Here again is a question of fact; 
 concerning which, witnesses could hardly be deceived. But it is a 
 matter of testimony; not of authority. We begin then at the be- 
 ginning, and examine every unsuspected witness we can find for 
 two hundred and fifty years. The body of testimony found in the 
 course of this examinntion, greatly strengthens our conviction that 
 we have given tiie right inter[)rctation to the particular parts of 
 scripture, which concern church government. 
 
 Of precisely similar character; but of higher import is the ques- 
 tion respecting the genuineness and authenticity of the New Test- 
 ament. We read the book; it is one of very extraordinary charac- 
 ter. Who wrote it? Here is a question of naked fact. It is de- 
 termined exactly in the same way with the authorship of any other 
 book. The evidence is so full and decisive as to produce complete 
 conviction. So that if fiiith is to be given to human testimony, 
 there cannot be the least reasonable doubt as to the genuineness and 
 authenticity of this book. VVe have no hesitation, then, in resort- 
 ing to the testimony of christians in regard to these facts, respect- 
 ing which there can be no deception. And we place on it the 
 greatest reliance. 
 
 But every intelligent reader perceives at once, that there is a 
 wide cHfference between this case, and the question, what is the 
 meaning of this book, called the New Testament? It is not possi- 
 ble to doubt as to the men who framed the Constitution of the United 
 States — But we know that there are deplorable disputes as to its 
 construction. In settling disputes of this kind, we place a very 
 high value on what may be called historical interpretation. But 
 yet the nature of the case makes it very different from that of de- 
 termining the authorship of a book. Paul wrote the epistle to the 
 Romans. This is a simple affirmation of fact, which testimony de- 
 cides at once. Paul in writing the epistle to the Romans intended to 
 leach such and such truths. Here is a general affirmation contaming 
 in it, just as many distinct particulars as there are sentences in the 
 epistle; or as there are propositions, that may be derived from it. 
 Now we grant, that if testimony could be brought to bear on each 
 distinct proposition contained in the epistle to the Romans, just as 
 it may be on the fact, Paid wrote that letter, there would be no 
 more room for doubt in one case than in the otber. Bishop R. 
 then has plainly mistaken the point, when he affirms that disputes 
 in relation to interpretation are settled in the same way, in which 
 we determine that the Srriptures are the word of God. It is true, 
 as far as historical interpretation goes, it is evidence of the same 
 kind ; that is testimony. But it is testimony respecting very differ- 
 ent matters; and given in very different circumstances. 
 
 We admit that the matters in dispute, do not concern one hun- 
 dreth part; nor one thousandth part of the propositions that may 
 be framed from the New Testament; for — thanks to God! — that 
 blessed book is, in general, too plain to be disputed about. But 
 Tvhen there is a controversy respecting the meaning of passages, 
 which involve undetermined points of doctrine, then the difficulty 
 is great. For, 
 
 1. It is often extremely difficult to find witnesses giving uniform 
 testimony. 
 
lieview of Bhhop Ravcnscrqft^ s Vindication and Defence. 191 
 
 2. They are often too remote, to be safely relied on. 
 
 3. The witnesses on vvliich we might most safely depend, are 
 «ften altogether silent as to the points in dispute. 
 
 4. The witnesses sometimes disagreed among themselves. 
 
 It is then, in relation to many matters now brought into question 
 utterly impossible to say what "sense and meaning" of Scripture 
 "has been invariably held and acted upon, by tlie one Catholic and 
 Apostolic church of Chiist." 
 
 Bishop R, does indeed " <,onfidently assert his ability to show, 
 what the primitive church invariably held, as the true sense and 
 meaning of Scripture, on any point of disputed doctrine or order, 
 which the reviewer may please to select." (pa. 108.) Now we 
 have no doubt that the bishop really tiiought that he could do this. 
 But the Reviewer, does not believe that he can: nor will he be- 
 lieve it, until the thing is done. We shall select a few cases after 
 a while, on which he may, if he pleases, try his hand. In the 
 mean time, we must inform him that the adversaries of high-church 
 principles have often referred to the rule, in substance, giv^n by 
 him, and have put the decis^ion of their case on the testimony of 
 the pri(nitive churrh. Tliey have not then refused to submit to 
 the rule; but have maintained that the rule worked in their favor. 
 The true state of this whole matter, then, is just this. If bishop R. 
 means that the testimouy of (he primitive church, as far as it can be 
 ascertained, is a valuable hei>p in determining disputes respecting 
 interpretation, or doctrine, we have the happiness of agreeing with 
 liim. If he means, however, that points of difference are to be 
 authoritatively decided by a reference to the primitive church, then 
 Tve do certainly dilTer from him; and maintain that the rule is in- 
 consistent with that right of private judgment, which is the funda- 
 mental principle of the Reformation. In reading the bishop's 
 pamphlet, we find him appearing to ^us sometimes to hold one of 
 these opinions, and sometimes the other. All that we hereafter 
 have to say is on the supposition that he maintains the authoritative 
 character of his rule. — Or the case may be thus stated. If we are 
 investigating a passage of Scripture, we iirst resort to the usage of 
 the writer; then the usage of other writers in the same language, 
 to the scope of the passage, the contest, &.c. according to the plain 
 rules of common sense. And among the helps employed, we are 
 always ready to use the Fathers; but often we acknowledge with 
 very little satisfaction. 
 
 VVhen the inquiry respects a point of doctrine, our first recourse 
 is to the scriptures; and the first step there is to ascertain their real 
 meaning. When this is done, there is generally no difliculty in de- 
 termining tl)c matter in question: but should there be a dilficulty, 
 we resort, among other aids, to the writings of the primitive church; 
 and gladly accept .my assistance we can lind there, in making up 
 our mind. Will bishop R. agree to this? If so, our controversy is 
 at an end. 
 
 But does he not say thus? — Mere is a point of doctrine or order in 
 dispute. We cannot settle it. But the primitive church (i. e. the 
 three '"'reeds and the four general Councils) has determined the point, 
 if you do not submit to this decision. 1 hold you as schismiUics or 
 
19& Review of Bishop Ravenseroft^s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 heretics, or both; and refuse to acknowledge you as members ot 
 the church, or partakers in God's covenanted mercies. This we 
 oppose. 
 
 I. Because the rule runs in a circle. The bishop tells us to 
 search the scriptures; but he bids us go to the church, that we may- 
 learn the true meaning of scripture. Well, where shall we find 
 the true church? Here are the Romish church, the Protestant 
 Episcopal church, the Presbyterian church, the Lutheran church, 
 the Congregational church — all claiming to be true, and some ex- 
 clusively true. What shall we do? Go to the primitive church? 
 But suppose that we cannot do that; and all claim to have the true 
 pattern — whom shall we believe? Mui-t we not of necessity either 
 put implicit faith in one or the other of these opposing claimants, 
 or go to the Bible, and judge as well as we can for ourselves? If 
 we do the first, we shall be pretty certain to choose that denomina- 
 tion, where we find the most kind hearted, humble, benevolent and 
 holy men. If this should happen to be a Presbyterian, or Luthe- 
 ran denomination, then the Catholic sends us to the pit at once, and 
 the high- churchman leaves us to uncovenanted mercy. But if we 
 do the last — then we search the scriptures to find the church; and 
 go to the church to explain the scriptures. 
 
 But on the supposition that we can search the records of the pri- 
 mitive church; how far do these terms reach? They include the 
 first four general Councils, — that is, they reach 450 years. But in 
 going through the records of this period, we find something to favor 
 Congregationalism; more to support Presbyterianism; and in about 
 400 years strong evidences for Episcopacy; with now and then a 
 little in favor of the Papists. And in modern times, we do not see 
 any thing exactly, in all respects, like the primitive church. What 
 are we then to do? The primitive church itself presents us differ- 
 ent aspects; and really, we are unable to decide. Taking the first 
 three centuries for our standard; we should, on the wliole, be Pres- 
 byterians. But taking the next century and a half, we should in all 
 probability be Episcopalians. We must go to scripture, and find 
 the notes of a true church there. And then, according to the rule, 
 we must look to the church to expound the scripture. Drive this 
 argument as we may, it will run round m a circle. 
 
 But the bishop has taken up a strange notion, that our argument 
 has the fault, which we have attributed to liis. Lot the reader 
 turn to pages 106, 107, 108, and he will see a very curious attempt 
 to make this out. The substance is this: — There are opposite views 
 of the faith or order of the gospel. Both preacher and Reviewer 
 say, search the scriptures. The search has been made; and the 
 disputants do not agree. The bishop proposes to^ refer the matter 
 to the "judgment of the primitive church." No, says the Review- 
 er, I appeal to the scriptures. y\nd all the bishop can do; the Re- 
 viewer stands to his first principle — search the scriptures. That 
 is, an argument, which stands stock still, runs round in a circle! 
 
 The meaning of the Reviewer on this subject is this : What can- 
 not be decided by the Bible, in matters of religion can be decided 
 by no authority whatsoever. And considering the intention with 
 which the word of God was given, matters which cannot be settled 
 
Review ef Bishop ltavenseroJ%'s yv^dkation and Defence. 193 
 
 by recurring to the Scripture, interpreted according to the sound 
 principles of IIermeneutics--once more let this word be pardoned ! 
 — cannot be authoritatively settled at all. And he that adopts, and 
 persists in the wronj; opinion, must bear the consequences, what- 
 ever they may he. But it is reasonable to suppose that questions 
 of this sort are not "fundamental;" — not of the'essence of religion. 
 For illustration — we take the leading question between Episcopa- 
 lians and Presbyterians. Both go to Scripture; and they cannot 
 settle it. T'he Fresliyterian thinks however, that the terms of 
 Scripture clearly give him the advantajie. — The Episcopalian re- 
 sorts to the Fathers. The Presbyterian follows him. All the 
 stores of ancient learning are laid open. Men of the highest name 
 are ranged on each side. Jewel, and Hooker, and Beveridge, and 
 Hammond and Potter on the one; Salmasitis, Milton, Blondel, Claude, 
 D'Aille, &c. on the other. The subject is perfectly exhausted. 
 The Presbyterian is positive that all the best evidence is in his fa- 
 Tor; because it is the earliest unsuspected testimony that can be 
 brought to bear on the case. The Episcopalian is confident that 
 the Fathers favor his cause. Both agree, that there must be a 
 ministry of the Gospel, regularly ordained; and the great difference 
 is, whether the ordaining power is lodged with Presbyters; or is 
 committed to the superior order of bishops. Now we say, that a 
 question of this sort cannot surely belong to the essence of religion; 
 it cannot be essential to the being of a church. You may be a true 
 christian, entitled to covenanted mercies, and be either a Presbyte- 
 rian, or an Episcopalian. Does bishop R's rule overthrow this po- 
 sition? If it does; it is more rigid than any rule laid down in the 
 word of God; and therefore we reject it. He thinks it a fearful 
 thing, that the qunstion never can be settled. We think it not near 
 so bad as to settle it by any authority short of the word of God. If 
 we are not convinced that the decision of men accords with the true 
 meaning of the word of God, and we submit; then the submission 
 of our understanding is made not to God, but to man. Should this 
 be done in every case of disputed doctrine, where would be liberty 
 of conscience, or the right of private judgment. " But (says the 
 bishop, pa. 107,) the mischief stops not here. If such reasoning 
 be correct, the purpose of God in the revelation of his will is re- 
 versed, and private judgment, competent or incompetent, (for you 
 cannot limit) made the standard of the word of God. Thus faith is 
 uptorn from tbe foundation, and religion scattered to the winds." 
 What purpose of God is reversed? It cannot be God's purpose, in 
 putting Ins word into our hanris, to direct us in the way of salvation. 
 And when we place our faith in the word of God, as interpreted ac- 
 cording to our best reason, how is faith uptorn? When we are at 
 a loss to understand the word of God, if any one proves its mean- 
 ing to us, and the understanding submits, still it is to the authority 
 of God. But if any one, or any body of men decrees or testifies 
 that the word of God means so anJ so, without proo/, then the credit 
 is given to men, and not to God. This we think is tearing up faith 
 ^vith a witness. 
 
 But in the next place, the rule is held not to be good, because 
 its application is impossible. Here the bishop asserts his ability t» 
 
1 94 Review of Ijishop llavens&i'ojt* s Tindication and Defence. 
 
 show what the primitive church invariably hckl as to any disputed 
 point whatsoever — and the same thing as to the Protestant Episco- 
 pal church — or the particnh\r denomination of christians calling it- 
 self (^he will not call it) the Presbyterian church. Bishop R. has 
 read the fable of the traveller, who made a long jump at Rhodes. 
 He mast do the thing, and then we will believe him. Let him show 
 then what the primitive church invariably held respecting the of- 
 fice of Deacons : or that of bishops or presl)yters — or respecting 
 the filioque controversy ; or the quinquarticutar controversy. — 
 When he shall have done this, we will, should we live long enough, 
 give him some other points to settle. 
 
 But we will be less rigid. — Let the bishop show us what in every 
 age since its foundation, the Church of England has invariably be- 
 lieved. Here, however, it wdl not do, to tell us that the Church 
 of England has had her articles from the beginning unto this day. 
 Because — not to insist on the several revisions of them which have 
 taken place — the letter of the articles does not express the belief, 
 of the Church of England; it is the meaning attached to them which 
 performs this service. Now in regard to this matter there have 
 been very considerable charges, while the articles themselves have 
 remained pretty much the same. Let bishop R. make himself ac- 
 quainted with theological literature from the reign of Edward VL 
 to Charles L and say what were the sentiments of the Fathers and 
 Reformers of the Church of England. Let him then pursue a course 
 of reading through the works of the leading writers, from the days 
 of Laud to the present time: and he will find that the articles of 
 the Church of England do not enable one to tell what sense and 
 meaning the Church of England has invariably given to Scripture. 
 Because, in truth, she has given a different meaning to her own ar- 
 ticles, in different periods of her history. And at this very time, 
 there are or very lately there have been warm controversies in 
 that church as to the true interpretation of these articles. Plainly 
 then the bishop's rule will not ansvver. It never has answered 
 where conscience has been free. Here, however, we must insist 
 on not being misunderstood. We not only admit, but we hold that 
 the articles of any particular church taken in their plain, grammati- 
 cal meaning, clearly enough indicate how the church, which ad- 
 heres to that meaning, understands the particular passages of scrip- 
 ture referred to in support of the articles; and, as far as the articles 
 go, it is determined what doctrine is derived from Script'ire. This 
 we take it, suggests the true and proper use of Creeds and Confes- 
 sions. The church says, we understand that the Scriptures teach 
 such and such doctrines; if you, on diligent inquiry, find it to be so, 
 we can walk together in the fellowship of the same society. And 
 ihe purpose is served as long as the church adheres to the plain 
 meaning of her own articles. But when we fly from this purpose, 
 and undertake to determine the meaning of any disputed text of 
 Scripture, by, referring to that which the church has invariably held, 
 we commit the logical absurdity of attempting to settle an xmknown 
 question by one vixove.unkno-wn, ignotum per ignotius. No difficul- 
 ty in Scripture is so great as that of determining, in relation to 
 pvery disputed point, what the primitive church invariably held. 
 
Mttiiew of Bishop Ravetiscroft^ s Vindication and Defence. 195 
 
 The questions proposed by our reviewer, in relntion to particular 
 doctrines, t\s held by tlic Episcopal church, retain all their force. 
 We inquired, formerly, what that church held concerning the 17th 
 article. The bishop does not tell us; but aflirms, without the 
 shadow of proof, that on this subject, her doctrine is what it always 
 ivas. But what is this invariable doctrine? "It is not calvinistic;" 
 says the bishop. Well then, what is it? Until the bishop shall an- 
 swer this question, we have a right to assume, that he is unable to 
 do it. And, whatever may be the doctrine held by the church of 
 England at present, we are prepared to prove that Cranmer, Lati- 
 mer, Ridley, Hooper, Parker, Giindal, VVhitgift, and the great body 
 of English bishops, to the end of the reign of James I. held senti- 
 ments, which are now called calvinistic. We have no room here 
 to adduce the evidence, by which these facts can be established. 
 But, should any one hesitate as to the truth of the statement, we 
 pledge ourselves to put the matter beyond all reasonable doubt.* 
 
 As for Baptismal regeneration, we refer the bishop for a refuta- 
 tion of his opinion to Scott, Biddulph, and other Episcopal writers, 
 ivho have recently agitated that question. 
 
 And in relation to the general subject of Calvinism, the bishop's 
 Caricature of the floctrine, reminds us of bishop Horsle3;'s advice 
 to men very much like our diocesan. Take care that you knoxv what 
 Calvinism is before you oppose it. — We have only to say farther, that 
 
 * Our readers may, perhaps, know sometliing of the famous Lambeth Ar- 
 ■ tides. Tliey were drawn up at Lambetli palace, under tlie eye of Archbish- 
 op Whitgift, in connexion with Bancroft^ then of London, and afterwards 
 of Canterbury; Vuiighan of Bangor; Tindal dean of Ely, and JVhitakev 
 queen's professor of Divinity. They are in these words. 
 
 1. God hath, from eternity, predestinated certain persons to life; and hath 
 reprobated certain persons unto deatli. 
 
 2. The moving, or efficient cause of predestination unto life, is not the 
 foresight of faith, or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing 
 that is in the persons predestinated : but the alone will of God's good 
 pleasure. 
 
 3. The predestinate are a predetermined and certain number, which can 
 neither be lessened, nor increased. 
 
 4. Such as are not predestinated to salvation, shall inevitably be con- 
 demned on account of their sins, 
 
 5. The true, lively and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, 
 is not extinguisiied, doth not utterly fail, doth not vanish away, in the elect, 
 either finally, or totally. 
 
 6. A true believer, that is, one who is endued with justifying faith, is 
 certified, by the full assurance of faith, that his sins are forgiven, and that 
 he shall be everlastingly saved by Christ. 
 
 7. Saving grace is not allowed, is not imparted, is not granted to all men, 
 by which they may be saved if they will. 
 
 8. No man is able to come to Christ, unless it be given him, and unless 
 the Father draw him : and all men are not drawn by the Father, that they 
 may come to his Son. 
 
 9. It is not in the will or power of every man to be saved. 
 
 Of these famous articles, the Archbishop of Canterbury thus expresses 
 himsflf, "J know them to bf soiiml doctrines, mid uniformly professed in this 
 Church of England, and agreeable to the articles of religion established by 
 authority." The Archbishop of York (Hutton) gave his testimony in their 
 favor. — And these very articles were sent to the University of Cambridge 
 with a letter from VVhitgift, in which it was desired that "nothing be pub- 
 licly taught to the contrarv." — VVhat was the doctrine held bv the cimrch 
 oF England then r 
 
1 96 IReview of Bishop lla-oenscrojl-s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 <lic bishop shows himsftlf greatly to need this advice. Disclaiming 
 utterly all resemblance between the doctrines reprobated by this 
 writer, and those of the christians called Calvimsts, we do not feel 
 ourselves called on to say a word more on this subject. 
 
 The question urged by the bishop, (pa. 1 13.) " in what method 
 we would proceed to produce the conversion of a fallen being, ab- 
 solutely unregenerate ?" is noticed here as a theological curiosity. 
 
 Our next objection to the bishop's rule is, that it is contrary to 
 {\xe fundamental principle of the Reformation. 
 
 On this point we do not feel the necessity of making many re- 
 marks. If any one knows not, that the sole authority of Scripture 
 to settle questions of religious controversy is the furulstmental prin- 
 ciple of the Reformation, it is necessary tor him to study ecclesias- 
 tical history. We have before said, that if bishop II. means that 
 the testimony of the ancient church, as far as it can be clearly ascer- 
 tained, and the expositions of {he fathers, are to be taken as helps, 
 to be used according to our best judgment, there is no difference 
 between us on this point : but if they are to be taken as authority, 
 to which private judgment must submit, then we are forever against 
 him : and what is more, the principles of the Reformation are 
 against him. 
 
 His error arises from this. The great men, who conducted the 
 Reformation, had to maintain their ground against those who had 
 been accustomed, for ages, to submit to the authority of the church. 
 The influence of this authority was very great. While, therefore, 
 Uicy adopted, as their first principle, the siifficiency of the Scriptures 
 and made them the sole judge of controversy, they were not slow 
 to take their adversaries on their own ground ; and were not un- 
 willing to appeal to the testimony of the fathers, and the judgment 
 of the primitive church. Many would have given them no credit 
 at all, had they not pursued this course. Accordingly it would be 
 perfectly easy to fill a folio volume with references to the judgment 
 of the ancient church, and the expositions of the fathers, made by 
 the Reformers. But this by no means disproves our position. — 
 Notwithstanding all this, the rock on vvliich the Reformation rested, 
 was the sufficiency and exclusive authority of the Bible. The re- 
 ferences then made by tiie bishop to particular writers, and to the 
 Confessions of different churches, proves nothing to his purpose. 
 " The Helvetic Confession of 1536" expresses precisely the thing 
 we have been aiming at. Articles 2 and 3, quoted by bishop R. 
 pa. 120. " The interpretation of Scripture is to be sought only from 
 Scripture itself that thus Scripture maybe its own interpreter; 
 under the directing rule however of charity and fiuth." — *' So far 
 AS the holy fathers have adhered to this species of interpretation, we 
 not only accept them as interpreters of Scripture, but venerate 
 them as beloved instruments of God." This is the true Presbyte- 
 rian, Protestant rule. But we judge in every case how far they 
 have adhered to this rule. 
 
 The method pursued by many Protestants, however, of referring 
 to the fathers often made their work extremely embarrassing. The 
 remarks of bishop Hurd, quoted in part in our former Review, 
 place this subject exactly on the right ground. Bi?hop R.'s ntfempt 
 
Meview of Bishop RavenscrofVs Vindication and Defence. 19? 
 
 to get over this by his usual cry of misrepresentation only shows 
 that he was " hard run," See pa. 139, note. Let any man read 
 bishop II. 's book, and if he has no prejudice to warp his mind he 
 will see that we fairly expressed the sense of that ingenious au- 
 thor. The only pretence offered by bishop R. to support the very 
 serious charges oi' unfairness and falsehood is that we placed in cap- 
 itals, what, as bishop Kurd's book is printed, was inclosed in hooks 
 or brackets. School boys learn in their elementary books, that a 
 parenthesis consists of words introduced into a sentence, not mate- 
 rial to the sense. And they who never advance farther in knowl- 
 edge, suppose, whenever they see the marks usually indicating a 
 parenthesis, that something is introduced not material to the sense. 
 But when we read with the understanding of men, we soon leara 
 that, very often, words which are intended to be very emphatical, 
 and on which great stress is laid, are thus marked. It is easy to 
 give an illustration of this, which bishop R. will feel to be very 
 plain. If we could permit ourselves to descend to personalilies, 
 and say in relation to the style and manner of the book we are re- 
 viewing — men of coarse minds, of furious passions and violent pre- 
 judices, (and bishop R. is one of these) always substitute abuse foe 
 argument, — would the bishop sa}' that the words in the parenthesis 
 were immaterial ; had little meaning, or none worthy of notice ? 
 On the contrary would not he and his friends cry out against us, as 
 violaters of the courtesy which ought to distinguish christians and 
 gentlemen ? Let our readers understand that we make no asser- 
 tion of this kind respecting bishop R. We only wish him to see thai 
 in this case he has very unwarrantably brought heavy charges onus, 
 because we have taken one method, (and that which we are in the 
 constant habit of using) of showing the emphasis of a sentence, while 
 the author from whom we quoted adopted another. 
 
 The bishop employs several pages to show that in attempting to 
 invalidate the auihority of the fathers, we do, as far as our little in- 
 fluence extends, unmeasurable mischief, besides contradicting our- 
 selves. 
 
 We aim a blow at the foundation of all religion ! Indeed ! — This 
 is truly mischievous ; and worse than mischievous. But how ^ 
 Why it is on the testimony of the fathers that we believe that the 
 Bible is the word of God. But here the bishop talks loosely. Au' 
 thority is that to which, without question, we are bound to submit. 
 Testimony is that of which we are to judge. When we weigh it 
 carefully, judge of its credibility, and see that it is good, our under- 
 standing is fully convinced. When it applies to facts concerning 
 which there can be no deception, is uniform and consistent, doubt 
 is utterly unreasonable. This is the case with the testimony of the 
 fathers respecting the important matter involved in this question. 
 But the bishop does not state the point on which this testimony of 
 the fathers bears. They do not directly prove that the Bible is the 
 word of God: they prove that Matthew, Mark, Luke, &c. wrote 
 the books ascribed. to them ; and that these books were believed by 
 them to be the word of God. A number of steps more are neces- 
 sary to make us believe it. The testimony of the fathers then to 
 the fact of authorship is a very different thing from authority, in the 
 only sense in which this word is relevant to the subject. 
 
11)8 Review of Bishop HavcnsGroJih Vindication and Defence. 
 
 As to our inconsistency, we liave already sliown the weakness of 
 the charge. Testimony nuay bo fully sufficient to convince us that 
 aiich an action as the baptizing of infants was performed — and yet 
 the testimony of the very same men may be utterly insufficient to 
 show thata book containing ten thousand distinct propositions, means 
 so and so, and cannot mean any thing else. While therefore we 
 attribute not a jot or tittle of author it ij to the fathers, we value their 
 testimony exactly accorchng to its uoi th. And we cheerfully ac- 
 knowledge our obligations to D'Aille for the assistance which we 
 have derived fro(n him— Other Protestants have done the same. 
 We admit indeed that lie pushes his argument too far ; yet he was 
 a very great, learned and good man. [ins bishop R. ever read his 
 book ? Res^pecting this man, universally esteemed sii the Protest- 
 ant world, bishop R. liiiuUi- himself warranted to speak thus. (Pa. 
 124.) "The pupil of D'Aille d'.-cl;ne> his teacher; hut it requires 
 Corinthian assurance to assert, that his work, on the right use ofthe 
 fathers, was useful to the men you name.*' Corinthian assurance! 
 This, in plain English is, brazen impudence. Well what have we 
 done? Stated nothing but historical facts. It is undeniable that 
 lord Falkland sent D'Aille's book to Chillmgworth, and that it was 
 the means of extricating that admirable man from the entanglements 
 of Popery. We do request our readers to procure bishop Hurd's 
 " Introduction to the Study ofthe Prophecies,^'' and read from page 
 329 to pa. 333, Amer. Efhtion. Lest, however, this should not be 
 in their power, we give the following extract. The author had pre- 
 viously shown, that Protestants had disavowed and deserted the 
 principle, that the scripture is the sole rule of cHRlSTIA^f 
 FAITH ; and that great evils had resulted tVom this error. He then 
 proceeds thus. 
 
 ♦'The inconvenience was sensibly felt hy the Protestant world. 
 And, after a prodigious waste of industry and erudition, a learned 
 foreigner (M. D'Aille) at length showed the inutility and folly of 
 pursuing the contest any further. In a well considered discourse 
 071 the use of the fathers, he clearly evinced, that their authority 
 was much less than was generally supposed, in all points of religious 
 controversy ; and that their judgment was especially incompetent 
 in those points, which were agitated by the two parties. He 
 evinced this conclusion by a variety of unanswerable arguments ; 
 and chiefly by showing that the matters in debate were, for the 
 most part, such as had never entered into the heads of those old ivriiers^ 
 heing, indeed, of much later grozith, and having first sprung up in the 
 barbaroiis ages. They could not, therefore, decide on questions, 
 which they had no occasion to consider, and had, in fact never con- 
 sidered ; however their careless or figurative expression might be 
 made to look that way, by the dextrous management ofthe contro- 
 versialists." 
 
 "This discovery had great effects. It opened the eyes of the 
 more candid and intelligent inquirers : and our incomparable Chil- 
 lingworth, with some others (Lord Falkland, Lord Digby, Dr Jer. 
 Taylor, &c. ) took advantage of it to set the controversy with the 
 Church of Rome, once more, on its proper foot ; and to establish 
 forever, the old principle that the bible, and that only, (inter- 
 
.Review of Bishop RavenscroJ'i''s Vindicaiion and Defence. 190 
 
 preted by our best reason) is thr religion of protestants." 
 This Corinthian assurance which the bishop so courteously assigned 
 to us, then, must be transferred to bishop Hurd ! How could any 
 thing be more unfortunate ? It is always safest to know something 
 of books, before one writes about them.* 
 
 In pages 126, 127, the bishop amuses us by his argument to show 
 that we in company with our reverend brother, Dr Miller, take the 
 same ground with the Unitarians. Mr Spurks-- and we speiik liighly of 
 the learned D'Aille. So also does bishop Hurd; su do many others. 
 Let tlie bishop deal out the same measure to nVl. 
 
 Again. Dr Miller, Mr Spaiks and the lif viewer reject the au- 
 thority of the epistles uf l-in.itui^<. And what then? Dr Miller, 
 BIr Sparks, bishop R., Mohammed, and the Reviewer believe that 
 there is one God ; and reject the authority of the Pope. Most 
 fearful .' 
 
 One word as to the charge of inconsistency in the reference made 
 to the epistles of Ignatius. They are not quoted by any Presbyte- 
 rian as authority. The case is just this. It is much questioned 
 whether these writings are genuine or not ; nevertheless they are 
 very ancient. But as the controversy respecting them is not set- 
 tled, let us hear what they say. 
 
 1. In relation to the form of the church, they are against die- 
 cesan, and in favor o{' parochial episcopacy. 
 
 2. In regard to the Unitarian controversy, they are altogether on 
 the side of the orthodox. — Whatever opinion, then, may be formed 
 of the value of their testimony, it is all for us. There surely is no 
 inconsistency here ! As they are very ancient writings, they show 
 at least what was the opinion of the author respecting these matters 
 of controversy ; and as far as the judgment of one man goes, they 
 throw liglit on the opinions of the church, at the time when he 
 lived. 
 
 We cannot persuade ourselves to prolong this Revievv, by fol- 
 lowing bishop R. through bis quotations from Chillingworth and 
 Hooker for the purpose of showing that we have not fairly exhib- 
 ited the sentiments of those great men. The whole argument is 
 one, which we used, not Iterause vve thought it of any importance 
 in itself, but because bishop R. called for authority; and we wished 
 to suit his taste. The only point in which we can possibly feel any 
 interest in the sutject now, is the refutation of the charge of mis- 
 representation brought forward by the bishop. This would be 
 easy enough, if it were of any importance. As for Chillingworth 
 
 *Bishop R. was rash enough to accuse us with unfairness and falsehood 
 (we sicken at the very thoui<ht) because in formerly quoting this passage, 
 it was printed differently from the book from which it was taken, as we 
 have explained above. We hovvi ver gave exactly the words, of bishop 
 Hurd Bishop [i. undertakes to give them "exactly as they stand" in 
 Hurd's work, letter for letter, yet behold he has them printed in a very dif- 
 ferent form, as may be seen. 
 
 Bishop R. gives them thus. 
 And to estabfisli forever the old 
 principle, that the Bible, and tiiat 
 only ( interpreted by our best 
 reason) is the religion of Protes- 
 tants. 
 
 Bishop Hurd's book is thus printed. 
 "And to f stublish, forever, the old prin- 
 ciple THAT THE BIBLE, and that only, 
 (interpreted by our best reason) is the 
 UELIGIOX or PBOTESTANTS, " HoW 
 
 careless ! 
 
iaOO Review of Bishop UavenscrqfCs Vindicalion and Defence. 
 
 we could quote page after page to show that he did conduct his con- 
 troversy with the Roman Cathohcs on the piinciples which he 
 learned from D'Aille, and that he gave authority to the Bible alone. 
 And we hold ourselves able to prove that, as for Hooker, bishop 
 R. has yet to learn the fundamental principles, on which his work 
 rests. Bui after all, it would amount only to this; that we are not 
 chargeable with doing that, which we are as incapable of doing as 
 bishop R. is of acknowledging Dissenters to be christian brethren. 
 If there is any such thing, as knowing definitely what men mean 
 by their words, we are able to prove that the founders and fathers 
 of (be Church of England think with us concerning the authority of 
 the scriptures, and their full suffiriency as interpreted by them- 
 selves. Should there evei ajipear any necessity for showing that 
 these are not raere boasting tuords, we will not be slow to engage 
 in the work. 
 
 Our Reviewer had said that bishop R's. rule was worthless; and 
 in support of bis assertion appealed to the state of the Church of 
 England. The rule does not produce uniformity there. This fact 
 is unquestionable. The History of the Bible Society proves it. — 
 The state of religious controversy proves it. The bishop says 
 that it is because the minority in the church refuse to submit to the 
 rule. Here his information is not correct. For while the best 
 men in the English Church maintain the sufficiency and sole 
 authority of the scriptures, in their controversies, they are very 
 desirous to show tiiat the articles of the church, and the fathers, are 
 on their side. So then it is manifest that there is a dispute about 
 the application of tl»e rule. And it is found just as difficult to de- 
 termine in whose favour the rule works, as what doubtful passages 
 of scripture mean. What is a rule worth in this case? 
 
 While on this subject we are bound, in justice to ourselves, to 
 oifer a remark or two, on some observations of our Reviewer in re- 
 lation to the established Church of England. He had urged the 
 fact just adverted to respecting the divisions in the Church of Eng- 
 land, as proof positive that the bishop's rule is worthless and re- 
 marked, that in that establishment, there were high and low church- 
 men, Deists, Arians, Socinians, Calvinists, Arminians and Sweden- 
 borgians: and that this not only proves that the bishop's rule won't 
 do; but that great injury is done to a church, when government 
 encourages bad men to seek a living in it. Novv these remarks 
 have been sadly misinterpreted by the bishop. Our design was, 
 simply to state tlie evils of an establishment. It " allures ambi- 
 tion, cupidity, and infidelity." It affords opportunity of simony. 
 It makes the church subservient to the government. When has it 
 happened that a British prime minister could not command the vote 
 of the bench of bishops ? When the government supports the 
 church, will not that government take care that the church will 
 answer its purposes, and promote its views? This is the whole 
 amount of our meaning. And all history proves, that establish- 
 ments do aftord encouragement to bad men to seek a living in the 
 church. We do not pretend however that the object of the esta- 
 blishment is, to induce bad men to enter the church. We speak 
 only of the effect. 
 
lievkw of Bishop Ravenscreft^s V%ndicaUon and Defence. 20 i 
 
 But here, ngain, the bishop is grievously offended, because in 
 speaking of the valueless character of his rule, we adverted to the 
 fact, that clergymen of different sentiments in the Episcopal church 
 subscribe their articles with different views. There are probably 
 at this time between five hunih'ed and a thousand clergymen in the 
 English church, who in a classification of religious opinions are called 
 Calvinists. There may be fifty Swedenborgians. There are very 
 many Arminians. These cannot all subscribe the articles in the 
 same sense. Some subscribe ex nnimo, that is, because they really 
 receive the articles in their plain grammatical sense. Others, be- 
 cause they are articles of peace. The distinction has long been 
 made; and is perfectly familiar. They who subscribe in the latter 
 sense, never dream that they are committing perjury, or any thing 
 like it. As little did the Reviewer ever think of making such a 
 charge. This is altogether the invention of bishop R. Our 
 readers, then, may consider all that he has said on this subject as 
 entirely wide of his mark. It is true, the Reviewer thinks it strange 
 that any man can persuade himself that the articles of the church 
 are anti-calvinistic. But he ha'< no doubt that some men may so 
 believe. Yet that multitudes subscribe them as peace articles he 
 has no doubt. Of them, he has said nothing beyond the mere fact; 
 and he meant to make no use whatsoever of the fact, but in the way 
 of argument against the bishop's favorite rule. We have said 
 this, because we do utterly abhor the pr.ictice of railing against 
 whole bodies of men, and charging them with wickedness, because 
 they differ from us. VVe cannot suffer ourselves to lie under any 
 such imputations. 
 
 That the articles of the Church of England are Calvinistic ap- 
 pears evident from this; that no Arminian ever was known to frame 
 such articles. When Mr Wesley separated from the Church of 
 England, and drew up his system, how many of the doctrinal arti- 
 cles of that church did he omit? When the dispute arose between 
 the Remonstrants and Contra- Remonstrants in Holland, what was 
 the judgment of the English church respecting the five points? 
 What unfettered Arminian ever was known to subscribe the articles 
 of the English church? But let any man take the articles and com- 
 pare them, in their plain grammatical meaning, with the Confessions 
 of the Reformed churches; and he will not fail to see that they ail 
 teach substantially the same system. As for the consistency of this 
 system with the gospel offer, it is no part of our present work to 
 make it out; and we are utterly unwilling to prolong the contro- 
 versy. Let bishop R. seek information from writers in his own 
 church. Let him go to Scott and Newton. Or if the authority of 
 these men is not sufhcient, let him go to Hooker, U) BeveriHge, to 
 Usher, to Hall, to Davenant, to Whitgift, to Grindal, to Parker;— 
 from such writers as these, he may perhaps learn something. 
 
 In the mean time, we must set him right as to the reason why 
 Evangelical clergymen are objects of our affectionate regard. 
 
 "That for the Evangelical Clergy of England (and I doubt not for those 
 of America likewise) in this novel acceptation of the vvoifl, Ui- Rice 'en- 
 tertains tiie highest regard,' and the sincerest affection, needs not to be 
 disputed ; nor yet, that he rejoices at their increase, Strange indeed i' 
 
202 Review of Bishop Eavenscroft' s Vindicalion and Defence. 
 
 would be, when men think alike, and act as near as possible by the same 
 rule, that the bonds of fellowship should not be strengthened. In this case, 
 there is but the mere trifle of Kpiscopacy betwixt them ; and as observa- 
 tion has taught me, so doubtless it has not escaped Dr Rice, tliat where the 
 principles of Calvin are entertained, ilie revealed order of the Gospel, is 
 proportionably, lightly regarded. Hence the flattery wliicli tl)is descrip- 
 tion of persons receives from the Presbyterians, and the high gratification 
 all classes of Dissenters manifest, at recfiving countenance from any por- 
 tion of the Episcopal Church."— pp. 143, 144. 
 
 Here the bishop errs greatly. We have two reasons for loving 
 the evangelicnl clergy of all denominations. 1. They appear to 
 embrace the great truths of our common Christianity with all the 
 heart, and live under their influences. 2. They love these truths 
 so much, as to recognise as brethren, and co-operate with those, 
 who embrace them, notwithstanding differences in form and order. 
 And if this is, indeed, the effect of embracing the principles of 
 Calvin, it aftords some pretty good evidence that these are also the 
 principles of the gospel. 
 
 But as for the flattery of which the bishop speaks, he is entirely 
 out. We love truly evangelical men of ail denominations; because 
 they have the spirit of Christ. But when we see, as unhappily 
 we do see men of this character, allowing themselves to be screwed 
 up to high-church principles, we hesitate not to withstand them to 
 the face. We ask the bishop seriously to consider what spirit is 
 indicated by the declaration that Dissenters tnanifest " high gratifi- 
 cation at receiving countenance from any portion of the Episcopal 
 church?" Alas! how little he knows of Dissenters. They re- 
 joice when their Episcopal brethren evince sincere, humble, de- 
 voted piety: — it is the joy of christian benevolence. 
 
 As for bishop R's pleas for the English establishment, we let 
 them pass for just what they are worth. We advert to the sub- 
 ject only for the purpose of entering a solemn protest against the 
 insinuation, that we designed to bring odium on the Episcopal 
 church of this country, by referring to the establishment of Eng- 
 land. And we hereby publicly declare our full and firm belief, 
 that there is not an evangelical denomination in the United States, 
 at all desirous to be brouglit into alliance with the state. Nay 
 more: we do verily believe that (he churches of Christ among us, 
 Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Con- 
 gregational, would each one severally, o|)pose any such measure 
 for themselves. So deeply, and deadly do they believe the injury 
 done to vital piety by these unholy mixtures. VVe have inquired 
 much into this subject — and such is our full conviction. All then, 
 that bishop R. has said on this subject goes entirely for nothing as 
 far as we are concerned. 
 
 But we cannot dismiss the subject of the progress of popery in 
 the present day, quite so easily. We had forewarned the bishop 
 that his rule would not do, to enable him to maintain a conflict with 
 the man of sin; and that, let the trial come when it may, he would 
 find himself obliged to resort to the great Protestant principle of 
 the sufliciency of the scriptures. The History of the Reforma- 
 tion according to the bi3hoi)'s own showing, proves this. Did the 
 Reformed churches adopt his rule? Whence then, their want of 
 
Meview of Bishop Ravenscrqft's Vindicalion and Defence. 203 
 
 uniformity? Why do Episcopal, and Presbyterian, and Lutheran 
 churches in their varieties exist? And why are interminable con- 
 tests carried on respecting the form and doctrine of the primitive 
 church? And why do the most learned and skilful papists uni- 
 formly resort to the Fathers, for a decision of controversy? And 
 how can the Fathers decide controversies which have arisen long 
 since they were born? The bishop may rely on it, that a contro- 
 versy which cannot be settled by scripture, interpreted on the 
 plain principles of common sense, just as we interpret other books, 
 cannot be settled at all. But this subject need not now be followed. 
 
 That the Holy Alliance does use the corruptions of religion to 
 sustain their evil purposes we doubt not: that with this view they 
 support the Pope and the Jesuits, and priests as wicked, the course 
 of events renders very clear. And we hope to be pardoned for 
 relating a personal anecdote. It was our fortune once to encounter 
 Dr B., a man distinguished for talent and science, but unhappily a 
 determined infidel. He attacked the Bible Society on the ground, 
 that it ivas a mere tool of the Holy Alliance, and expressed great 
 surprise that Americans and republicans should imitate Europeans 
 in a case like this. We defended the Bible Society on the princi- 
 ple, that the dissemin:!tion of the holy scriptures is favorable to the 
 interests of genuine liberty. Our antagonist made the remark, 
 which bishop R. makes m a note pa. 147, that Alexander of Rus- 
 sia, the head of the Holy Alliance, was the greatest friend of the 
 Bible Society in the world. To which we replied, — He does not 
 know what he is doing — But mark these words: as soon as JHexati' 
 der shall be made to understand what is the proper effect of the Bible 
 generally distributed among the people^ he will put down the Bible 
 Society in his dominions. And our great fear is, that, through the 
 activity of the Jesuits, he will make the discovery before the Bible can 
 he fxdly circulated among the Russian peasantry. — This conjecture 
 was verified by the event. Despots, political and ecclesiastical, re- 
 gard the Bible as their greatest enemy. 
 
 And we regard bishop R.'s retlections on our Reviewer, and his 
 '^Jesuitical arts," with perfect indifference. But at the bottom of 
 pa. 148, (note,) there is a query proposed, which we feel it to be 
 our duty to notice. "Is the attention of the religious world directed 
 so constantly to the march of popery, in order to call off its obser- 
 vation, from the strides of presbytery to a similar domination?" 
 This question was proposed immediately after a censure of our Re- 
 viewer, repeated about the tenth time, for endeavoring to excite 
 prejudices against the Episcopal church. So much for consistency! 
 But as to the injurious reflection on the Presbyterian church here 
 made, we have little to say, except that we are very sorry that any 
 one, for whom we feel compassion, should expose himself by mak- 
 ing it. It is much about as wise, and as well founded, as to say 
 that the Constitution of Virginia or North Carolina is monarchical, 
 or that the people are making strides to overthrow republicanism. 
 If bishop R. had not shewn himself lamentably uninformed in re- 
 gard to the Presbyterian church, we should be constrained to say, 
 that in this case, he knew better. But he "knows not what he 
 says, nor whereof he allirms." And the world knows little of what 
 26 
 
^04 Iteviexv of Bishop RavenscroJt*s 1'lnilicatioii and Defence, 
 
 this country owes to Presbyterhui principles, in giving "an impulse 
 to the ball of the revolution;" or to the hardy valor of the sons of 
 the church; or to the pious patrigtism of her ministers. Some fu- 
 ture Robertson will rise up and do her justice. The world knows 
 not how the principles of liberty are engraved in the constitution of 
 that church: nor that domination, if exercised at all, must be exer- 
 cised by the people over themselves. We cannot here do justice 
 to this subject. But this we tear not to declare as an unquestiona- 
 ble fact, that there is no l»ody of men in the United States, of equal 
 intelligence and standing in society, who meddle so little with poli- 
 tical questions, and mingle so little in the strife of party politics, as 
 the Presi^jyterian clergy. 
 
 As the bishop advances, he \vaxes warmer, and we find him mak- 
 ing on pa. 149 the following declarations: 
 
 " And in Bishop R.'s opinion (which he has no desire to conceal) it is not 
 a matter of much, thougli it is certainly of some, importance — whether the 
 victory be gained against tlie faith, or against the order of the Gospel. 
 Those are equaliy the Revelation of Almighty God to the world, and alike 
 fundamental to the hope, limited on the observance of them, as divine ap- 
 pointments, ^for can the Bishop conceive, upon what principle of justice, 
 or fair reasoning, a corrupt and erroneous view, as to the order of the Gos- 
 pel, is less an offence against God, than a corrupt and erroneous view as to 
 the faith of the Gospel. In other words — why an honest Unitarian is less 
 excusable before God, than an honest Presbyterian, Con^regationalist or In- 
 dependent. When Dr Rice can solve this spiritual problem, and shew by 
 warrant of Scripture, that a schismatic is in a less dangerous condition than 
 a heretic, as respects the righteous judgment of Got], there may be some 
 excuse for the dogmatism of this Reviewer, against Unitarians as to the faith 
 of the Gospel, and m favor of Unitarians as to the order of the Gospel." 
 
 This caps the climax! This single extract shows why high- 
 church delusions are to be exposed, and high-church principles put 
 Jown if possible. And we have copied it here, principally for the 
 purpose of showing why we have felt it our duty to subject the 
 bishop's work to a strict scrutiny. One of the striking distinctions 
 between Christianity and every other system of religion, is that it 
 lays so little stress, comparatively, on matters of outward obser- 
 vance; while it makes the truth supremely important. It is by the 
 truth, that we are sanctitied and saved. And if any one truly be- 
 lieves the gospel, relies on the atonement and obeys the commands 
 o[ the Lord Jesus; in other words, if he becomes a truly holy man, 
 he shall be saved. The gospel makes this as plain as daylight. 
 The whole order of the gospel is founded on this genera! principle. 
 And therefore the office of teacher was instituted — and the sacra- 
 ments were appointed. The specific object of the whole is the con- 
 veying of truth to the understanding and conscience: when this isdone 
 so as to produce faith and holiness, the work intended by Christ is 
 done. Yet bishop R. is so deceived as to believe and teach, that 
 besides all this, there is something else of nearhj equal importance, 
 which he calls the order of the gospel; something entirely distinct 
 from doctrinal truth and its influences; something possessed by him, 
 his Presbyters and deacons, as necessary to constitute one a chris- 
 tian, as belief in the atoning sacrifice of the Lord our Saviour! He 
 cannot, if it were to save his soul, draw out from the scriptures, 
 
Review of Bishop Ravenscroft's Vindication and Defence, 205 
 
 clearly and unequivocally, the form of the church polity, which he 
 connects with the mercies of God; and yet on account of this form, 
 which he mistakes for a positive institution of God, he divides the 
 church, and separates from the great hody of the faithful, and turns 
 and denounces them as heretics or schismatics. And thinks that he 
 is "set" for this purpose. He makes that to be essential to the 
 being of a church, and the hopes of man, which he cannot prove 
 from the Bible; and his system is in this part, at war with the true 
 genius of our religion. 
 
 The following pages to 160 are mere crambe recocta a saying 
 over, of what was said before. We remark here only this, that wc 
 have purposely avoided any formal discussion of the calvinistic 
 tenets attacked by bishop R. for two reasons. 
 
 1. We hold every man, who adopts the 39 articles, as fully bound 
 to vindicate the doctrines of predestination and election, as we our- 
 selves are. 
 
 2. While we never mean, on any proper occasion, to shrink ia 
 the least degree from a support of the doctrines which we have de- 
 rived from the word of God, we cannot consent to undertake a work 
 of this sort, when circumstances utterly forbid our going through 
 with it. We have a great repugnance to the naked statement of any 
 doctrine of the scriptures: it is not so in the Bible. There we find 
 the truth so exhibited as always to show us the practical reasoa 
 why God has revealed it to us. When we are taught that God 
 knows now, and knew from all eternity, every thing that he will 
 know in the day of judgment; that he will form no new purpose in 
 the day of tinal decision; that is no purpose which he has not formed 
 from all eternity; when we learn that God is a sovereign, who order- 
 eth all things after the council of his own will, we learn the whole 
 from the Bible in such a way as to lay a foundation for the exercise of 
 pious affections. When one falls and breaks a limb; or is made sick 
 by inalaria; oris injured by his fellow-men; or is bereaved by the 
 death of friends; when one has religious privileges, and pious, 
 benevolent feelings, and holy purposes, he, as taught by the word 
 and aided by the spirit of God, sees the hand of God in all these 
 events, and exercises suitable affections towards God; and the gov- 
 ernment of God is felt to be desirable. But when the naked meta- 
 physical truth is brought forward, men are sure to cavil and find fault. 
 The same remarks apply to the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity. The 
 naked proposition; that a person really and truly possessing a divine 
 nature, died in shame on a cross in this world, is stated, the reason 
 of every man is staggered. But when this doctrine is presented as 
 it is in scripture, in connexion with the depravity and ruin of man; 
 and the sinner is made to see and feel his condition, and understand 
 all that is necessary for his pardon and sanctification, and everlasting 
 salvation; and is commanded to trust in Jesus to do all this for him, 
 he finds it impossible to exercise this faith, and cherish hope through 
 Christ, without believing that he is a Divine and Almighty Redeem- 
 er. Sooner might one depend on an infant of a month old, to raise 
 a millstone that was crushing him to death; than depend on a mere 
 man to do, what Jesus Christ has undertaken to do for sinners in 
 the gospel. — These remarks will justify us we hope to our friends, 
 
mG Meview of Bishop Ravenscroft-s Vindication and Dejcnct'. 
 
 in passing over many things said by bishop R. against those Chris- 
 tians who are called Calvinists. 
 
 We come now to the bishop's conckuling parngraphs. And it is 
 with emotions felt by the ten thousand, in their famons retreat (im- 
 mortalized by the pen of Xenophon,) when after many a weary step, 
 through a parched and burning land, they camt^ in sight of the sea, 
 and the whole army at once shouted Qa?jallaf SaXalla! 
 
 Two subjects here claim attention one respecting the political 
 as well as religious influence of the opinions which we oppose, the 
 other a letter written by bishop R. to the Editor of the Literary and 
 Evangelical Magazine." 
 
 As to the first; bishop R. makes our Reviewer "bring forward 
 the serious charge of the surrender of the Episcopal Church in 
 America, to the views of a foreign influence, alike hostile to our 
 civil and religious institutions." We confess that after all the 
 proofs which the bishop had given of rash and bold assertion in 
 the previous parts of his work, we read this sentence vvith utter 
 amazement. We did not suppose that any ingenuity, however per- 
 verse, could ever have brought this conclusion out of any ih'wis, ut- 
 tered by us; especially, vvlien we absolutely disclaimed the belief 
 that the bishop saw the consequences of his own opinions; and dis- 
 tinctly declared the conviction that the Episcopalians of the coun- 
 try are as much attached to our political institutions, as any citizens 
 of the United States. 
 
 It is one of the vile arts of controversy, to attach odium to a man 
 by consequences derived from opinions, which he disavows. We 
 feel ourselves to be immeasurably above any such tricks as these; and 
 hold them in utter contempt. But it is entirely fair to oppose opin- 
 ions by stating consequences, which we think to be It^^gitimately de- 
 duced from them. This we never hesitate to do. And in this way 
 we mean to oppose high-church notions. 
 
 In regard to the particular matters now before us, to which the 
 bishop with that regard to decorum which characterises him, has 
 allowed himself to apply the epithets, ''sIa7iderotis and false,"" we 
 solemnly declare that we were actuated by no feeling but that of 
 good will towards the Episcopal Church. How this was we beg 
 leave to explain. But first we must premise, that although we are 
 thoroughly, and decidedly, under the f^ullest conviction, Presbytcri- 
 ans; and although we wonder much, that all who have the oppor- 
 tunity of making a fair examination, are not Presbyterians too, yet 
 we never could conceive of any reason, why we should quarrel with 
 any man for being an Episcopalian. We never once thought of 
 hostility to the Episcopal Church: because we recognise it as a 
 branch of the church of Christ and its pious members as Christian 
 brethren. But we see a palpable distinction between an Episcopa- 
 lian and a high-churchman. Me may certainly be reckoned an Epis- 
 copitlian who thinks it expedient that the church should be placed 
 under the care of bishops, (diocesans) and on the whole prefers that 
 form of government; but yet acknowledges as brethren all who re- 
 ceive the fundamental doctrines laid down in the 39 articles. He 
 may even think this sort of Episcopacy to be of tlivine institution, yet 
 not essential to the being of the church: and so hold communion with 
 
lieviexu of Bishop Ravenscrofl*s Vindication and Defence 207 
 
 non-episcopal brethren. But he is a hi^h-churchman, who so holds 
 Episcopacy to be of flivine right, that there can be no church with- 
 out prelacy; who calls himself the accredited agent of heaven, the 
 substitute for Christen earth; who thinks that all the power which the 
 Saviour has committed (o his Churrh, is vested in the ministry, and 
 transmitted by succession; who regenerates man I)y baptism, nego- 
 tiates his pardon, and uives him assurance of salvation, by the Lord's 
 Supper, who binds the source of all grace to the fulfilment of his 
 engagements, and brings the authority of the church to interpret the 
 scriptures. Now we are most fully convinced, 
 
 1. That claims like these are contrary to the spirit of the Gospel. 
 
 2. That, as far as they are admitted, they are injurious to the 
 interests of true religion. 
 
 3. And that they are hurtful to the cause of civil liberty. 
 
 They form the basis of that stupendous system, whicii when fully 
 erected, showed forth the Man of Sin in romplete revelation. — 
 Allow this power to the Clergy, and they are at once placed on 
 vantage ground, and nothing can prevent their ultimately gaining a 
 complete ascendency, but the expedient of making the church de- 
 pendent on the state. It is in vain to say, that this authority is 
 only allowed to the Clergy in matters of faith. When man surren- 
 ders himself up to a vicar of Christ, in regard to oil matters which 
 concern faith, and rnnsripuce and salvation, it will not be long be- 
 fore he will yield stiil farther; and tlirther still, until every thing 
 will be obliged to submit to an uncontrolled ecclesi;istical domina- 
 tion. The growth of papal authority affords abundant proof of 
 these truths. And as liberty cannot exist, so piety cannot flourish 
 under high-church influences. It soon becomes a matter of parade 
 and show; religion loses all its spirituality and purity: its pomp fills 
 the imagination, its ceremonies satisfy the conscience, while the 
 heart remains completely unmiproved. ^n(\ then it is that men 
 
 " HATE THE GOSPEL, WHILE THEY LOVE THE CHURCH." 
 
 Here is the reason why we set ourselves, not in opposition to 
 ihe Episcopal church, but to high-church principles. We per- 
 ceive that vigorous efforts are made to promote these principles in 
 this country, and we feel that the times call for vigorous opposition. 
 Now we did not, in the least degree, intend to attach, even to a 
 high-churchman, the odium of consequences which all history 
 teaches us to deduce from his principles, and therefore we stated 
 again and again, that we did not at all believe that bishop R. saw 
 through bis own opinions; and of course we held that he could not 
 design to produce these evils. We did intend to give him a »varn- 
 ing which, if taken in the spirit in which it was given, might be salu- 
 tary. Our Reviewer is not the first whose kind intentions have 
 been spoken of in evil terms. But our benevolence went still 
 farther. The great body of Episcopalians in this country, do not 
 approve these high-church notions. They think them illiberal; 
 and only submit to them because they do not like to quarrel with 
 their Clergy. In the meanwhile, the high-churchmen arc steady- 
 to their purpose, and the attem[)t is persevermgly made to diffuse 
 their princij)les.— Nor is the attempt unsuccessful. Every observer 
 can mark the change. Fully believing, that complete success 
 
;a08 Review of Bishop Ra-oenscroft*s Vindication and Defence. 
 
 would do unspeakable injury to the cause of religion in general, 
 and to our sister church (for so we thought and felt in relation to 
 it — ) in particular, we designed to alarm the people, by pointing 
 out consequences, which though undesigned, we believed certain.- 
 For the purpose of exciting a greater alarm, we adverted to cer- 
 tain facts, which at the time ivere fully before us. It had been 
 published in all the newspapers, that the Pope had added ttu'enty- 
 four thousand dollars to his annual appropriation for supporting and 
 extending the Catholic relij^ion in this country; ive heard on good 
 authority that popish propagandists were alert and active; that a 
 zealous Missionary Society' in Paris aflurds very extensive aid to 
 the Missions of the Jesuits in this countr) ; we saw in the Christian 
 Observer an address to christians in Great Britain, stimulating them 
 to assist in building up the Episcopal church in this country, by this 
 consideration that there was danger lest the Roman Catholics should 
 occupy the ground before them. And in these circumstances, with 
 our full conviction that high-church prinriples are akin to popery, 
 our determination was to do our humble part in awakening public 
 attention and public feeling to such a degree, that the people when 
 about to settle a Mmister, would first ascertain whether he was a 
 high-churchman, or a low-churchman. In doing this, we were sure 
 that we should do great kindness. The prinriples which we op- 
 pose, we do conscientiously believe will ruin any church, and any 
 country: and the opposition made by us, was benevolent, in its ob- 
 ject; it was intended to be urbane, respectful and christian in its 
 manner. The bigots of all parties cannot conceive of the strength 
 with which we felt the common bond of brotherhood; nor of the 
 degree to which we identified ourselves with all who love the Lord 
 Jesus, and are willing to co-operate in promoting his cause: they 
 are incapable of forming any idea of our abhorrence of a proselyt- 
 ing spirit; and of our carelessness, whether, if one were a chris- 
 tian, he united with r/us society or that; and therefore this state- 
 ment will appear to them incredible. 
 
 Nor will they be able any better to appreciate our motives, in 
 holding back a part of the letter which bishop R. sent to the Editor 
 of our Magazine. That letter contained tlie following words: — 
 When the rule of interpretation shall be settled " it will be time 
 enough to notice in detail, the fallacies which abound in thp piece 
 in question, and to thank you for holding me up to religious and 
 political odium, while with characteristic Presbyteiian cunning, a 
 protest is entered against drawing the only fair meaning from your 
 language." Characteristic Presbyterian Cunning ! It was 
 once written by a wit of great celebrity; and a keen observer of 
 human nature. 
 
 Is he a churchman ? tlien he's fond of power. 
 A quaker ? sly — a presbyterian ? sour. 
 
 Whatever changes may have taken place, we believe that high- 
 churchmen retain their old nature: and as for the Presbyterians, 
 we have never known evidences of their sourness, except when 
 they were brought to encounter the followers and retainers of 
 worldly power. Then indeed, they are sometimes a little caustic; 
 but thev have been diluted from the concentrated sourness of the 
 
Review of Bishop Uavenm'ojih Vindication and Defence. 20S 
 
 sturdy old Cameronian to the mild subacid of our Reviewer. And 
 really and truly, it was this gentleness which prevented our pub- 
 lishing the whole of the hishop's letter. He had there spoken of 
 the Presbyterian body in very unbecoming terms. " Characteris- 
 tic Presbyterian Cunning I" — There are twelve hundred Ministers 
 of the Gospel, and more than two hundred thousand professing 
 christians, in the United States, of whom the bishop of North-Caro- 
 lina permits himself thus to speak. 'We thought that the language 
 was so bitter, so illiberal, in a word so misbecoming the Epis<;opal 
 character as drawn by the Apostle Paul, that we would not let the 
 world hear it. In tenderness to the bishop's character we withheld 
 it, believing that he wrote in anger what he would repent of in his 
 cooler moments. This, if there is truth in man, was our reason for 
 forbearing to publish that which bishop R. does not hesitate to 
 bring before the world. 
 
 We neither, then, were actuated by hostility to the Episcopal 
 church nor any unfriendly feeling to bishop R. in any thing written 
 by us. On the contrary all was kindness and goodwill. And now 
 we declare ourselves to be utterly" incapable of unfriendliness to 
 any who bear the name, and exhibit the spirit of Jesus Christ. — 
 And we do fully believe, that high-church principles are so at vari- 
 ance with the meek and humble spirit of the Gospel; with pure 
 christian charity ; with the primitive constitution of the church ; 
 with the real interests of the country; that the people, every 
 where, ought to require of a Minister of the Gopel a formal and 
 utter renunciation of such principles before they afford him their 
 support. — But we are perfectly willing; nay, earnestly desirous 
 that all intelligent, well tramed, pious, humble men, who have 
 consecrated themselves to the work of the Ministry, and are de- 
 voted with all their hearts, not to the building up of a party, not to 
 the narrow mterests of sectarism, but to the glory of God and the 
 salvation of men, may be received in love, wherever they go, and 
 be very highly esteemed for their works' sake. Such men, we 
 shall ever delight to recognise as brethren; — while we shall ever 
 consider ourselves as set for opposition to the opinions of those 
 who set up to be vicars of Christ on earth, 
 
SlO dppendix to that pari of the Review 
 
 APPENniX TO THAT TART OF THE REVIEW OF BISHOP RAVENSCROFX's 
 
 BOOK, WHICH TREATS OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS. 
 
 EPISTLES OF IGNATIUS. 
 
 Ignatius was pastor, presiding presbyter, or bishop of the Church 
 at Antioch. He was celebrated as a man of great piety, and 
 fervent zeal; and, having been conversant with the Apostles, he 
 must have known well what vvas the order and discipline of the 
 Apostolic Church. His testimony therefore would be of very great 
 importance, if we could devise any means of coming certainly at it. 
 In our Review, we have not appealed to this Father, because we 
 regard him as a corrupted witness. They who take an interest ia 
 this subject have a right to be informed of our reasons. We here 
 give them as briefly as possible. 
 
 In the reign of Trajan, Emperor of Rome, Ignatius vvas put to 
 death for his attachment to the cause of Christ. It is related by 
 Eusebius, iii. 36, that he was made prisoner at Antioch, and con- 
 ducted by a circuitous journey to Rome, where he was thrown to 
 wild beasts, in the year 107; but some say 1 16. It is farther said 
 that on his journey to Rome, he wrote seven epistles; to the Ephe- 
 sians, the Alagnesians, the Trallians, the Romans, the Philadelphians ^ 
 the Smyrnwans, and to Polycarp. Jerome, also, in his catalogue 
 mentions these seven letters, and no others. It seems therefore 
 undeniable that in the days of Jerome and Eusebius, there were 
 extant seven letters ascribed to this pious and holy man. But it is 
 a question, greatly disputed in former times, and not yet decided, 
 whether Ignatius really wrote these letters, as we now have them. 
 A very brief history of these famous writings, will show the ground 
 of the doubts entertained as to this matter. 
 
 For a long period, there was reason to suppose that the letters 
 of Ignatius had been irrecoverably lost. But nearly at the close of 
 the 15th century, three Letters in Latin, ascribed to this Father, 
 were printed at Paris. A few years afterwards, eleven letters in 
 the same language were published at Strasburg. Shortly another 
 edition was printed, with three additional letters. Finally the 
 number was raised to fifteen, of which, twelve were in Greek, and 
 three in Latin. These last were soon universally regarded as spu- 
 rious: and at length five of those in Greek were rejected by most 
 men of learning. There then remained only seven, addressed to 
 the same persons that were mentioned by Jerome and Eusebius. 
 But of these letters there are two very different sets of copies, 
 distinguished by the terms larger and smaller. They differ not only 
 in size, but also in sentiment and doctrine. The greatest number 
 of learned men, who favor the genuineness of the Ignatian writings, 
 reject the larger, and vindicate the smaller. A few have adopted 
 the contrary opinion, and have maintained it with such learning and 
 ingenuity, as to render it somewhat dillicult to decide between them. 
 If the larger epistles are genuine, the smaller may be regarded as 
 an epitome of them; and on the contrary, if the smaller be assumed 
 as genuine, they must have been sadly interpolated in making out 
 
which treats of the testimonij of the Fathers. 211 
 
 the larger. This circumstance throus considerable suspicion on 
 the whole aflair. Somebody must, one way or another, hav*^ made 
 very free with the reputed writings of this celebrated Martyr. 
 But on the whole vve are convinced that, on a comparison of the 
 two sets, the smaller are to be preferred. We cannot here assigo 
 our reasons. The larger letters then may be dismissed as corrupt 
 by interpolation. This is placing the matter on ground chosen by 
 the most learned Episcopalians. The great and good archbishop 
 Usher, and the learned bishop Pearson have put out their whole 
 strength in vindicating these smaller leilers. If the question could 
 have beon decided by the learning and ingenuity of any men, that 
 have ever adorned the English Cliurch, it would have been done by 
 Usher and Pearson. After all, however, that diligent and learned 
 historian Mosheim was obliged to express himself in the following 
 terms. "Antiquissimas esse has literas, certissimum est; uon totas 
 esse contictas, lam credibile, ut nihil credibilius fieii possit ; qua- 
 tenus vero pro sinreris haberi debeant, id inenodabile arbitror." 
 It is most certain that these letters are very ancient; that they are 
 not entirely forged is as credible as any thing can be: but how far 
 they are to be held as genuine (or uncorrupted) is an inextricable 
 difficulty. Com. De. Reb, Clirist, pa. 161. 
 
 Some of the reasons which have prevented our relying on them 
 as authentic documents of the Apostolic Church are as follows. 
 
 1. The manner in which these letters speak of the officers of 
 the church, is widely different from that of all the undisputed 
 authors of the first two centuries. — We have already shown that in 
 the New Testament, the words bishop and presbyter were used 
 indiscriminately; and that this mode of speaking was kept up until 
 near the year 250 — And that then a change took place in the use 
 of terms, because a distinction was made between bishops and pres- 
 byters. When this distinction however was made, and for some- 
 time afterwards, the bishop presided over a single congregation. 
 
 Now although Ignatius was an apostolical man, and of course 
 would naturally have expressed himself on this subject in confor- 
 mity with the usage of his time, yet in the letters ascribed to him, 
 he always distinguishes between bishops and presbyters; yet it is 
 evident that the Ignatian Prelate is the bishop of a single congrega- 
 tion. No man of common candor can read tbej^e letters, and not 
 acknowledge this truth. Hence they appear, from internal evi- 
 dence, to have been written after the time when a distinction ot 
 office was made between bishop and presbyter, yet before the 
 bishop was changed from a parochial minister to a diocesan. The 
 conclusion to which this argument leads is, that these letters were 
 put into their present shape, more than a hundred years after the 
 Martyrdom of Ignatius. 
 
 2. These letters speak of episcopal dignity and importance, in a 
 manner entirely different from that of the Apostles. Let the reader 
 recollect the language of Jesus Christ and bis apostles in reference 
 to this subject, and compare it vvith the expressions put into the 
 mouth of this Apostolical man by the writer of the Ignatian epistles. 
 In the epistle to the Ephesians, (v. vi.) he is madn to ■^ay, " It is 
 written, God Te$ist€th the proud. Let us therefore study not to 
 27 
 
£12 ^Ippendix lo thai imrt oj Ihe lieview 
 
 resist (he bishop, that we may be sultject to God. And the more 
 sileut one sees a bishop to be, lot liim reverence him so much the 
 more. For whomsoever the head of a household sends to govern 
 his family, him we ought to receive as we do tlie one who sends 
 him: it is manifest therefore tliat ue ought to regard the bishop as 
 we do tlie Lord himselfl" In the epistle to the Tralhans, (ii.) he 
 13 made to remark, "For since ye are subject to the bishop a;; to 
 .lesus Christ, ye ap|)ear to me not to live according to the fashion 
 of men, but according to Jesus Christ." Epist. to Philadel. iii. 
 "For as many as are God's and Christ's, they are with the bishop." 
 Ep. to Srayr. viii. "Do ye all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ 
 docs the Father; and the Presbytery as the Apostles: and rever 
 cnce the Deacons as the command of God, &c." Ai}(l even when 
 writing to Polycarp of Smyrna, he is made to turn suddeidy from 
 his brother clergyman to address the people of his charge in this 
 most extraordinary language, ch. vi. "Attend to the bishop that 
 God also may attend to you. I pledge my soul for those who are 
 subject to the bishops, presbyters and deacons!" Is this the 
 language of a man who had been a disciple of Peter and Paul, and 
 had imbibed their spirit? Let the reader judge. 
 
 To these internal evidences may be added others. We think 
 that the eager desire of martyrdom expressed in these letters 
 belongs to a later age than that of the true Ignatius. Peter and 
 Paul were ready to sacrifice life for the honor of their Saviour; 
 but they used all lawful means to preserve and prolong life, for the 
 benefit of the Church. But Ignatius is made to express a passion 
 for martyrdom, and to attribute a merit to it, nnich unlike any 
 thing to be found among the Apostles. 'J'lie truth is that at one 
 time there was a high degree of enthusiasm in regard to martyr- 
 dom; christians sought for it eagerly; offered themselves to heathen 
 magistrates, and refused to escape from prison when they had it in 
 their power. But we do not find any evidence of this in the age of 
 Ignatius — Yet these letters are replete with aspirations to this 
 honor; and that to the Romans, (iv.) while it aftbrds evidence of 
 this fact, contains some strange expressions of apprehension lest the 
 Uoman brethren should prevent the \vished for consummation. 
 "1 shall die voluntarily for God, if only you do not prevent it — 1 
 pra\' you do not exorcise this unseasonable benevolence to me." — 
 And more of this kind; after which he tells liis brethren how he 
 intends to irritate the wild beasts, when he shall have been thrown 
 lo them, so as lo cause them to devour him immediately. 
 
 Vj. In this same letter to the Romans, the writer is made to give 
 an account of his situation wliich renders it dilTicult to understand 
 how he could write so many Epistles to the churches. ''From Sy- 
 ria to Rome, I contend with wild beasts, by land and sea, night and 
 day, being bound to ten leopards; that is a band of soldiers." By 
 this it is commonly understood, that Ignatius was committed to the 
 charge often fierce and brutal soldiers; and that, according to the 
 usual custom, he was fastened to them with chains. If this was 
 the case, how was he at liberty to write to his friends? Is it to be 
 supposed that a prisoner of so much importance as Ignatius, who wa? 
 (laQjported from Antiocb to Rome to be executed, would be allowed 
 
which treats of the testimouy of the Fathers. 213 
 
 to write what he pleased to his brethren in any part of the empire? 
 It is said, too, that this illustrious ntiartyr, instead of being conducted 
 directly from Syria to Rome, was made to take a circuitous route 
 through many cities of Asia, that his arrest, his condemnation, his 
 certain death, might be known generally to christians, might strike 
 terror into them, and bring them off from this new religion. But if 
 this were tlie design, would Ignatius have been allowed to write let- 
 ters, glorying in his suflerings, and exhorting all christians to con- 
 stancy? To this it is replied that these soldiers might have been 
 gained oyer by money, to allow this liberty to their prisoner — If 
 so, how does it comport with tiie language just quoted. "I am on 
 the whole of this journey, by land and sqa day and night fighting 
 with wild beasts" — "1 am chained to ten leopards?" True; it is 
 no gjeat [)roor of human kindness, for a soldier to sell to his prison- 
 er the privilege of writing letters to his friends; but it is proof of ex- 
 treme indiscretion in a prisoner to insert in a letter thus wriften, 
 that his keeper was a brutal savage — And if Ignatius was so intent 
 on martyrdom that he did not wish to escape; yet he did wish to 
 write letters; and he scarcely would revile his keepers, when they 
 might so easily knqw all that he had written; and would be ready 
 enough to find a pretext for depriving him of this privilege. 
 
 We just notice here, in passing, the argument of the learned Bo- 
 chart, in his Hierozoicon, against the genuineness of these epistles. 
 He says that the word leopard (/l£07tapoo$) did not come into use 
 until about the time of Constantine the Great, and that therefore 
 these letters must have been written at least two hundred years 
 after the death of Ignatius. 
 
 4. Learned men have maintained that these letters make direct 
 allusions to heresies which broke out in the church after the deatb 
 of Ignatius. We are inclined to the opinion that there is truth in 
 this allegation; and if so the objection is perfectly decisive. To 
 examine this question fully would require a volume. If one will 
 read lyAille on the one side, Pearson on the other, and UArroque^s 
 observations on Pearson, it will enable him to form a just judgment 
 on this much disputed subject. 
 
 5. There is no sufficient evidence that any of the Fathers were 
 acquainted with these letters before Eusebius. The reference 
 made to Ignatius by Irena^us is merely to asaying of his, so short that 
 it might easily be remembered. The passage is in Lib. v. cli. 28, 
 65 ELTtd lig Icov Yi^isldpcov. K. T. A. "As one qC us said, when 
 condemned to the wild beasts as a martyr to God, 'I am God's 
 wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts, that I may be 
 found pure bread.' Jerome reports this as a saying of Ignatius, 
 lyhen he heard the roaring of the lions. Cum jam damnatus c^set 
 ad bestias, et ardore patiendi rugientes audiret leoiies, ait. frumentum 
 Christi turn, dentibus bestiarum molar, ut panis mnndus inveniar. 
 "When he was now condemned to the wild beasts, and heard the 
 lions roaring, in his ardour to suffer, he said, I am Christ's wheat," 
 k.c. There can be no doubt that Ignatius spoke thus. The saying 
 was thought a very striking one, and was often repeated. And 
 hence it might very well find a place in letters forged in the name 
 of Ignatius. Accordingly we see it in the letter to the Romans 
 ;ynttcn, as is pretended, when Ignatius was far from Rome. 
 
214 Jippeiuliixj lo that part of the Review, eye. 
 
 The reader cannot help observing that Irenicus speaks of this as 
 ii saying of some christian, and not as' any thing written. Jerome's 
 words do not admit of any other interpretation. It is also worthy 
 of notice that although Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, the most 
 inlimnte friend of Ignatius, yet he does not seem to know who made 
 this celebrated speech — Very possibly when once made, it was fre- 
 (jucntly repeated. But had Irengeus known that it was the saying 
 of his master's old friend, he in all probability would have so re- 
 ported it. 
 
 Another remark may also be here offered. It was the object of 
 Irenaeus in his work to confute the heretics of his day. In doing 
 this he very frequently refers to the succession of Presbyters from 
 the Apostles down to his time, and shows that all taught a doctrine 
 different from that which he opposed. But although the letters as- 
 cribed to Ignatius make several allusions to these heresies, yet 
 Irenaeus in no instance uses the testimony of Ignatius. This is cer- 
 tainly a circumstance of some weight against the writings in ques- 
 tion. 
 
 6. Origen has been much relied on as a witness in support of the 
 Ignatian letters; but the testimony of this Father is only found in 
 Latin works, which many very learned men have held to be spuri- 
 ous; and that without any reference to this controversy. 
 
 7. It might have been best to mention before this, the testimony 
 of Polycarp. But it is not material whether it comes first or last. 
 For there is strong internal evidence that it is a forgery. It is not 
 found in the Greek copy, which has been preserved; and it contains 
 a plain contradiction of what Polycarp had written before. This 
 Father exhorts the Philippians to follow the example of Ignatius, 
 Zozimus, Rufus, Paul, &c. speaking of them as already dead; but 
 in the part which we believe to be spurious, he requests the breth- 
 ren of Philippi to send him word what they knew, respecting Igna- 
 tius, and those who are with him — de his qui cum eo sunt — as 
 though they were alive. 
 
 On the whole, we are convinced that if Ignatius did write to the 
 churches on his way from Syria to Rome, that his letters have been 
 so tampered with, and interpolated, or mutilated, that their testimo- 
 ny is worth nothing. But while we maintain this opinion, we are 
 sure that the cause of diocesan episcopacy can derive no support 
 whatever from these writings. The bishop of Ignatius was a paro- 
 chial bishop, the pastor of one church, (and that perhaps not a large 
 one,) differing not, so far as we can ?ee, in order, but only in ojice 
 from his fellow presbyters. 
 
>' f%::i 
 
 V. % 
 
 rm^i 
 
 
 /.-r^. 
 
 ***^