Production Note
Cornell University Library produced
this volume to replace the
irreparably deteriorated original. It
was scanned using Xerox software and
equipment at 600 dots per inch
resolution and compressed prior to
storage using CCITT Group 4
compression. The digital data were
used to create Cornell’s replacement
volume on paper that meets the ANSI
Standard Z39.48-1984. The production
of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of
Library Research Materials and the
Xerox Corporation.	Digital	file
copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.Comtll SWmsitg jpkatg
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
FROM THE
SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND
THE.GIFT ©F-
Hwirg 1®* Sage
1891
	
f
Jr 5 ' (f e,
4	/
LETTER
TO
SAMUEL OSGOOD, ESQ.
OCCASIONED BY HIS LETTER UPON THE SUBJECT
OP
EPISCOPACY;
ADDRESSED TO
A YOUNG GENTLEMAN OF THIS CITY.
% PHILALETHES.
NEW-YORK:
PRINTED BY COLLINS AND PERKINS.
l)A
letter; &c.
Sib,
I HAVE lately been reading your Letter on the
subject of Episcopacy, addressed to a young gentleman of
this city. This Letter contains such a multiplicity of obser-
vations, that I find it somewhat difficult to trace the con-
nection of your argument. Your important conclusion,
however, is, “that the doctrine of a regular uninterrupted
succession inthe Christian ministry is absurd, and conse-
quently that the pretensions of Episcopalians are presump-
tuous, and ought to be abandoned.” Now, although I
entirely dissent from you in this opinion, I will acknow-
ledge, that the perusal of your letter afforded me hot a
little satisfaction. It is pleasing to see gentlemen, not of
the clerical order, turning their attention to a subject which
is certainly too much neglected by people in general, and
I am perfectly convinced, the more this matter is investi-
gated, the more apparent it will be, that Episcopacy is the
true, primitive mode of government in the church of Christ.
I cannot imagine, that the more considerate of your
Presbyterian brethren, however they may commend your
good intentions, will be much gratified by the doctrine
inculcated in the Letter now under consideration, for it
certainly tends to the subversion of all ministerial power in
the Christian church, It will not be denied, that the
church is a visible, regular, and well-ordered society, bles-
sed with good laws, and furnished with duly-appointed( 4 )
officers. Christ himself calls it my kingdom. He rules in
it with supreme authority, and all the legal power which is
exercised in it must be derived from Him, But, if the
doctrine of uninterrupted succession from him through his
Apostles, be false and ridiculous, from what source do
Christian ministers of the present day derive their authority
to preach the Word, and administer the Holy Sacraments?
This authority cannot be derived from the people, for they
who have nothing to give, cannot possibly communicate
to another what they do not themselves ppssess. You are
a believer in Jesus Christ; you hold fast the profession of
your faith without wavering. But, does the profession of
a sound faith, attended by a virtuous practice, confer upon
• you the right of constituting a minister in the Christian
church ? No; you are entirely destitute of this power, and
.your neighbours are as destitute as yourself. Although one
jhundred or one hundred thousand were to combine in aft
_act, of ordination to the ministry, their act on this occasion
would be a mere nullity: the product of the multiplication
qf a hundred thousand noughts would still be nothing.
, ; As to those who come with the pretence of an immediate
jCall from Heaven to speak and to act authoritatively in the
church of Christ, 1 suppose that you and every other sober
Christian will not be much inclined to acquiesce in their
bold pretensions. If, like St. Paul, they claim to be imr
mediately designated to the work of the ministry by Christ
.himself, let them give the evidence which St. Paul afforded
in confirmation of their high commission ; and then, and
not till then, we will be disposed to receive them in the
character of ambassadors from Christ, and stewards of the
mysteries of God.
What then remains ? If the people possess not the power
of ordination to the ministry* and if our yielding to the< 5 )
confident pretensions of self-constituted ministers would
open a wide door to confusion and every evil work; we must
have recourse to the doctrine of uninterrupted succession;
we must go back through a line of properly authorised
ordainers up to Christ himself, the source of all power and
authority, who founded his church on a rock, and promised
his Apostles to be with them always even unto the end of
the world. This, you say, is an impracticable undertak-
ing, and therefore reject the position as absolutely false.
Perhaps the task is not so difficult as you have hitherto
imagined.
In the prosecution of truth of every son, reason
tells us that we ought to be satisfied with such evidence
m the nature of the case will admit of. You believe the
book, which by way of eminence we call the Bible, to
contain the Scriptures originally given by inspiration of
God. What proof can you produce in support of this
belief? Can you trace these Scriptures from manuscript to
manuscript, and (after the invention of the art of printing)
irom one edition to another, from the original writers down
to our own times ? It may be difficult, perhaps impossible,
to do so; and yet you may very justly say, “ This book has
been received in every age of the church as the authentic
record of the revelation of God’s will to the children of
men ; and therefore, I should deem myself guilty of the
most culpable absurdity and presumption, were I now to
reject it as a spurious work.” In the same manner I would
argue, in order to establish the point relative to the Epis-
copal government of the Christian church.
It is acknowledged by the most learned and candid
Presbyterians that this mode of government universally pre-
vailed soon after the days of the Apostles. Eusebius,
who lived in the time of Constantine the Great, and who is
an historian of great learning and unquestionable veracity,<6 )
bears a decided testimony to the truth: of this opinion. He
gives us in the course of his history, a catalogue of the
Bishops who presided over several of the most eminent
Churches, and mentions their names in order, as they
succeeded each other, from the Apostolic age down to his
own time. All succeeding ecclesiastical writers speak of
Bishops, as ministers of a superior order to,Presbyters and
Deacons, in every part of the Christian world And from
these considerations Bishop Potter, in his discourse of
church government, draws the following conclusion. “ It
is as impossible for an impartial man, who shall compare
this historian with the rest of the primitive Fathers, to
doubt whether there was a succession of Bishops from the
Apostles ; as it would be to call in question the succession
of Roman Emperors from Julius Caesar, or the succession
of Kings in any other country. Indeed these who have
been produced, and others who have been passed by, are
such a multitude of unexceptionable witnesses, as can
scarce be produced for any other matter of fact, except
the rise and progress of Christianity; so that whoever
shall deny this, may with better reason reject all histories
whatever. It would be easy to continue this account of
the government of the Church by Bishops through all
succeeding ages to this time; but it being universally con-
fessed even by the professed enemies of Episcopacy, that
the church was governed by Bishops of a superior order to
mere Presbyters, after the time of Constantine, in which
Eusebius the last witness, I have cited, lived; it will be*
needless to carry it beyond this period.” And here, I can-
not but wonder, that you should introduce Bishop Potter
as one of our Divines who entertained doubts on this sub-
ject; who would not take upon himself to decide the
question about different orders of officers in the church.C 7 )
Whereas, upon reference to the passage which you have
quoted from his book, you will find that the only con-
troversy which he will not undertake to decide is, whether
certain Texts of Scripture which had been cited, refer to
the first or to the second order of officers in the church.
Respecting the genealogies so carefully preserved among
the Jews, you have made some remarks; on which I would
beg leave to observe, that it was necessary for God’s an-
cient People to be very particular in this matter, because
to one tribe the Priesthood exclusively belonged, and from
another, according to the predictions of the Prophets, the
Messiah was to spring. I need not remind you, that the
Priesthood under the economy of Moses, was a divine
institution, and that it was guarded with the utmost care
against all sacrilegious intrusion. The instances of Corah,
TJzza and Uzziah were dreadful warnings to the people,
that no man except the sons of Levi, not even the King
himself, should presume to execute any priestly office'
and that no Priest of an inferior order should ever arro-
gantly undertake to perform the duties which were peculiar
to his superior. Hence we may draw a strong argument
in support of our Episcopal doctrine, that under the Gos-
pel Dispensation also, a Priesthood has been instituted by
the Divine Head of the church, invested with exclusive
powers and privileges, which Priesthood is to be continued
to the end of the world by a regular uniform mode of ap-
pointment. When Christ came into the world to fulfil
the law and the Prophets, and to establish his church
upon earth under a new form, it was reasonable to sup-
pose that this church would still continue to be in all
things well ordered and sure. To explain and vindicate
this great truth, seems to be the chief design of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, in every part of which we are taught thatC * I
the institutions of the law were intended to prefigure the
good things of the Gospel. St. Paul, writing to Christians,
declares, “ We have an Altar.” Now, Altar and Priest*
hood are correlative terms: It would be needless to erect
an Altar, if at that Altar there were no Priest appointed to
officiate. No man is to take this honor unto himself, un-
less he be called of God, as was Aaron. St. Jude asserts,
that Christians may fall into a crime similar to that which
was committed by Corah ; and, let it be remembered, that
the sin of Corah consisted in his presumptuous attempt to
usurp an office which belonged exclusively to Priests of a
superior order. In conformity to the language of Scrip-
ture, the current doctrine of the primitive Fathers is,
ie What the High Priest, Priests and Levites were under
the law, that are Bishops, Priests and Deacons now under
the dispensation of the Gospel.” From these considera*-
tions we may fairly conclude, that he who founded his
church upon a rock, and declared that the gates of hell
should not prevail against it; he who promised to be with
his Apostles always even unto the end of the world, will
take care that his church shall never be destitute of a duly
authorized ministry; and that every man who undertakes
to act as his minister without having received a regular
commission from him, incurs the dreadful hazard of his
Lord’s displeasure.
In traversing the field of controversy with the Pres-
byterians, I have often viewed with surprize and regret
a method of disputation pursued by our opponents which
I cannot help considering as devoid of both candour
and strength. Let anv Author in the general tenour of
his writings be ever so clear and explicit in maintaining
the Episcopal government of the church ; if he happen
to introduce an unguarded expression, or if, through a(9 )
desire to conciliate, he make a concession that is a little
too extensive ; his decided language on the controverted
subject is disregarded; his equivocal expressions are
seized with avidity, and then brought forward in sup-
port of an opinion which he is known to disavow. With
regard to the venerable Ignatius, indeed, disputants on your
side of the question have adopted a singular mode of pro-
cedure. He was born before the death of St. John, was
appointed the Bishop of Antioch, and so repeatedly and
unequivocally speaks of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons,
as three distinct orders in the Christian ministry, that Pres-
byterians endeavour to get rid of his testimony altogether,
by the bold stroke of denying the authority of his writ-
ings. And this is done, although those writings may be
proved to be genuine by every argument that can be
adduced in favor of Pliny’s Epistles, or of any other
literary work composed about that period of time ; and
although the genuineness of the Epistles of St. Ignatius
has been actually vindicated by Du Pin, Hammond, and
Pearson, in a manner which defies all reasonable contra-
diction.
Because St. Jerome, in a dispute with an aspiring Deacon,
makes use of some strong expressions, in order to elevate
the Presbyter as far as possible above the Deacon ; his
words are continually brought forward by the advocates
of Presbyterian parity as favourable to their scheme of
ecclesiastical government, although Jerome most expressly
declares that the Bishop is invested with a power (that of
ordination) which is not possessed by the Presbyter ; and
in language equally explicit asserts, that Bishops, Presby-
ters, and Deacons are as much distinguished from each
other under the Gospel, as the High Priest, Priests and
Levites were under the law.
Modern authors have too often met with the same
B( 10 ).
treatment. It is reallysurprising, Sir, that the authority
of such men as Hooker, Chillingworth, Stillingfleet, Pot-?
ter and others of the same character, should ever be
dneed in support of a cause which, so far as a judgment
may be formed from the general tenour of their writings,
they utterly condemned. Hooker has left a challenge
upon records and has boldly declared that he will give up
^hp cause of dispute, if the Presbyterians will produce one
instance fpr the first fifteen hundred years, of a church
governed by their mode of discipline, and not by ours.
Chillingworth seems to be with you, Sir, a favorite author.
His piety and learning do, indeed, entitle him to the high-
est estimation. But is it necessary to remind you, that
Chillingworth has written a Small treatise which he calls
“ The Apostolical institution of Episcopacy demonstrated f9
The concluding section of this treatise is in the following
words ; “ When I shall see, therefore, all the fables in
the metamorphosis acted and prove stories ; when I shall
see all the Democracies and Aristocracies in the world, lie
down and sleep, and wake into Monarchies; then will I
begin to believe that Presbyterian government, .having
continued in the church during the Apostles’ times, should
presently after, against the Apostles’ doctrine and the will
of Christ, be whirled about like a scene in a Masque, and
transformed into Episcopacy. In the mean time, while
these things remain thus incredible, and in human reason
impossible, I hope I shall have leave to conclude thus;
Episcopal government is acknowledged to have been uni-
versally received in the church presently after the Apostles’
times.
"Between the Apostles’ times and this presently after,
there was not time.enough for, nor possibility of so great
an alteration.
" And, therefore, there was no such alteration as is( 11 )
pretended. And, therefore, Episcopacy being confessed to
be so Ancient and Catholic, must be granted also to be
Apostolic, quod erat dernonstratidiim
Stillingfleet, at an early period 6f life, wrote his Ireni-
Cum, in which, with the' view of conciliating the minds
of Christians who were Dissenters from the church of
England^ he conceded certain points which he ought to
have mamtained. When his understanding was better in-
formed and his judgment became more mature, his sub-
sequent writings show that he was sensible of his error.
Arid after this; surely it is not candid to quote his Ireriicum
on every Occasion, and say nothing of his clear and
decided opinions formed upon more mature deliberation.
Bishop Potter has written a Discourse of church Go-
vernment, the great design of which is to show that
Episcopacy was the established mode of ecclesiastical dis-
cipline frdiii the days of the Apostles, down to the time of
John Calvin. And yet, detached passages from his book
are produced for the purpose of invalidating those Episco-
pal sentiments, which his elaborate Treatise was written
to inculcate.	\
The church of England, I trust, will never be destitute
of able advocates to maintain her cause against all oppo-
sition, although their words may be sometimes misunder-
stood, and sometimes perverted from their original inten-
tion. 1 am induced to express this desire not only from
regard to Christianity in general, but from particular at-
tachment to the Protestant Episcopal Church in these
United States of America. Tracing our ministerial au-
thority hack through the church of England, we know
that we stand on sure ground ; we entertain not the least
doubt of the validity of our Ordination to the work of
the ministry. And here permit me to remark that you( 12 )
have unquestionably fallen into an error, when you assert,
“ that Luther and Calvin and their adherents must either
have continued in communion with the Romish church
to preserve that succession, or they must of necessity re-
nounce that succession and commence a new one, that
is, spiritual, which they did—and it is manifest the Epis-
copal church of England did the same thing.” It was not
absolutely necessary for Luther and Calvin to renounce
Episcopacy, when they undertook to purify the church
from the corruptions of Popery. Indeed, it was not in
the power of those Reformers to commence a new suc-
cession; no merely human authority was adequate to this
purpose ; it could be effected only by the immediate inter-
position of Christ himself the great Head of the church,
the source of all spiritual power. And herein is the great
advantage enjoyed by the church of England, when com-
pared to several other churches on the continent of Europe
where the Reformation was carried on by the People and
the inferior Clergy. In England, the. Bishops themselves
took the lead in the Reformation ; and having denounced
the usurpation of the Bishop of Rome and purified the
church from the erroneous doctrines which from time to
time had been added to the, primitive faith, they still re-
tained the line of Episcopal succession unimpaired. But,
you object to the propriety of this procedure, because this
is an acknowledgment that we derive our ministerial power
through the church of Rome. To this objection I will
answer in the words of an able advocate for ojur Episcopal
church; “ Well, Sir, and what of that? Was preserving
the succession from the Apostles, one of the corruptions
of the church of Rome ? I always supposed, that among
her good things that was one. When a man of corrupt
principles faithfully preserves a deposit committed to him
to answer any valuable purpose, and hands it down with-( is )
out the least injury to his successors, is this one of his;
corruptions ? The church of Rome has faithfully handed
down to us the Apostles’ and Nicene Greed, and the Holy
Scriptures; are they polluted by coming to us through
that channel ? Is there nothing good in the church of
Rome, because some things are bad ? Is not an office
valid, because the man who holds it is not what he ought to
be; or the church in which it is exercised, not so pure as
she ought to be ? How is it that men can hold a sentiment
which if true, must long since have destroyed the church
of Christ ? Was the Jewish priesthood, as to its validity,
affected by the corruptions of that church ? This mode of
reasoning, by proving too much, proves nothing.”*
When we consider the insidious, or the violent assaults
which infidelity is continually making upon the Christian
cause; when we behold the divisions and. contentions
which already prevail among those who profess to be
Christ’s Disciples; surely, every friend of truth, every
lover of religion, ought to be particularly solicitous to re-
press schisms, and to promote that Unity for which our
Lord so ardently prayed, just before his departurelout of
this world. I am persuaded, that the promotion of the in-
fluence of our holy religion is an object which lies near
your heart; and yet, I cannot help thinking that the sen-
timents expressed in your Letter have a direct tendency
to injure the cause which you mean to support. For only
consider, Sir; since religion cannot be maintained in the
world without a body of men set apart expressly for the
purpose of administering the Ordinances of the church ;
if, as you intimate, the mere possession of true faith, re-
pentance and holy obedience qualifies any man for the
valid administration of these Ordinances; will not separa-
* See the 7th Letter of Eusebius, in the Churchman s Monthly Magazine
for the month of March 1807.( H )
tionsbe multiplied and contentions inflamed? May not
every bold pretender to superior sanctity collect a cOngre*
gation and then become its lawful minister ? Is there not
reason to apprehend, that they who thus presumptuously
undertake to minister in holy things will be lightly esteemed
and the Ordinances of religion sink into disrepute ?
It is certainly a matter of more moment than the world
commonly imagines, that the Stewards who undertake to
manage the affairs of Christ’s household, should receive
their authority from the master of the family; that the
Officers who act in a subordinate character in the king-
dom of the Redeemer, should possess a valid commission
from the great King who sits upon the holy hill of Zion.
I have already expressed my satisfaction that you, Sir,
have made this matter the subject of your serious consi-
deration. When gentlemen of candid minds and liberal
education attend to enquiries of this nature, we may
reasonably hope that prejudice will be subdued, the ignor-
ant enlightened, the indifferent roused from their lethargy,
the empire of Truth enlarged, and the influence of virtue
and religion extended over the earth. And in concluding
this address, permit me to declare my earnest hope, my
confident expectation, that before the consummation of
all things, the primitive, that is, the Episcopal discipline
will be restored to the whole church of Christ; and then
the fervent desire of the holy Apostle will be completely
accomplished, “ Now I beseech you Brethren y by the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same
thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the
same judgment”
With due respect, I remain your obedient friend and
servant.	PHILALETHES.