LIBRARY OF PRINCETON JAN 2 4 2005 J THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY //. 6 > X^ LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY PRINCETON, N. J. PRESENTED BY fyWYV. H."Robe.r4-o.' ! teha P lI a o f t Pf ^nery in Me ordination, THE PLEA OF PRESBYTERX__ 0i Of Pi.7/jJ£ IN BEHALF OF THE ORDINATION, GOVERNMENT, DISCIPLINE, AND WO OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, GAL StvA AS OPPOSED TO THE UNSCRIPTURAL CHARACTER AND CLAIMS OF PRELACY. IN A REPLY TO THE REV. ARCHIBALD BOYD, A.M., EPISCOPACY, MINISTERS OF THE GENERAL SYNOD OF ULSTER. "Nobody has yet appeared who could prove that we have altered any one thing which God lias commanded, or that we have appointed any new thing contrary to His Word, or that we hav» turned aside from the truth to follow any evil opinion." — lohn Calvin. SECOND EDITION.— IMPROVED AND ENLARGED., BELFAST : WILLIAM M'COMB, 1, HIGH-STREET. DERRY, M. CAMPBELL; EDINBURGH, J. JOHNSTONE; GLASGOW, VVM. COLLIN9 ; MANCHESTER, GALT AND ANDERSON. MDCCCXL1. •KE180, PRINTER, BELFAST. ADVERTISEMENT. In presenting to the public this new Edition of the Plea of Presbytery, the Authors beg to state, that the whole work has been carefully revised. Not only have a number of typographical and other errors, which had crept into the first Edition, been removed, but, in all the Letters, the facts mentioned and the arguments employed have been substantiated by additional testimo- nies. Letter I. has been very much enlarged, for about one fourth of that portion of the present work consists of entirely new matter. The principal additions, which are intended chiefly to illustrate the rise and progress of diocesan episcopacy, may be found under the Section which relates to Ordination. In Letter III. a new Section has been introduced, in which some of the practical advantages of Presbyterianism are enumerated and discussed. Since the appearance of the first Edition of this work, Mr. Boyd, in a pamphlet entitled " Misrepresentation Ilefuted," has attempted to meet the charges of garbling, misrepresentation, and misquotation, which are here preferred against him. A few days after that publication issued from the press, the Authors put forth a rejoinder designated "Mene Tekel." They have there proved, they believe, to the satisfaction of the candid of all parties, that their opponent still lies under the incubus of all their original accusations; and the unbroken silence which Mr. Boyd has since maintained, emphatically demonstrates that he has found it impossible to escape from their indictments ; for, though nearly a twelvemonth has now elapsed since the appearance of Mene Tekel, he has not, in any way, attempted to rebut its allegations. The absurdity of his pretensions to superior research has been established beyond all question. He boasted in the Letters on Episcopacy that he took his quotations "not from second-hand sources," but " from the originals themselves," and yet it can now be shown that he has gleaned almost all his information from two modem books recently republished; for, since the appearance of our first Edition of the Plea, a scrutiny has teen instituted, and, with the exception of some half dozen references which may perhaps have escaped our observation, all his quotations have been traced directly either to Potter or Bingham. It may be added that the Plea of Presbytery, as well as Mene Tekel, is yet unanswered. Mr. Boyd, at an earlier stage of the controversy, seemed disposed to boast of his promptitude in reply, and we must therefore express our astonishment at the tardiness of his late movements. Should he again resume the pen, we beg to remind him, that he must how answer the present Edition of this work, — that a superficial review of a few of the topics in debate cannot be expected to satisfy an inquiring and intelligent public, — that he is bound to enter into all the details of the discussion as here presented to him, — and that he must at least attempt a full and searching examination of all our arguments. The present Edition of the Plea has been prepared at the suggestion and request of the Synod of Ulster. The Authors have had the honour of receiving from that body, through their Moderator, a vote of thanks for their " advocacy of the distinguishing principles of Presbyterian Church Government and Worship." They trust that the work now submitted to the public will be found to contain a pretty full exposition of the Presbyterian system. Should it serve to promote an enlightened attachment to their apostolic church, it will abundantly repay the time and labour expended on its preparation. May, 1841. CONTENTS. Preface, i. LETTER I. V BY THE REV. W. D. K1LLEN, RAPHOE. Sect. 1. — The occasion of the present Controversy, 8. Sect. 2. — The Ministerial Title, 9 — The Right of property and the Right of possession, 10. Seel. 3. — The Rights of the people in the election of Ministers — The election of Matthias, 1 1 — The election ofthe seven Deacons, 12 — The Historical Argument, 13. Sect. 4. — Presbyterial Ordination— 2 Tim. i, 6, considered, 17 — The Argument from 1 Tim. iv, 14, confirmed, 18 — The Ordination of Paul and Barnabas, 19— Timothy not Bishop of Ephesus, 21— Titus not Bishop of Crete, 22— Bishops formerly could not Ordain whithout Presbyters, 22 — The cases of Aeiius and Ischyras examined, 23 — The Churches of the East and the Waldenses, 24— English Bishops Ordained by Scottish Presbyters, 25— Rise and Progress of Prelacy, 27— None but Bishops used to Preach, 29 — Extent of the Bishoprics of Carthage and Rome in the middle of the third century, 30— Ad- vancement of early City Bishops, 31 — Fall of Country and Village Bishops, 32— Bishops formerly thickly planted, 34 — Decreased as Christians multiplied, 35 — Bishops and Presbyters Ordained by Presbyters, 36— The Alexandrian Presbyters for a long time Ordained their Bishops, 38. Sect. 5. — Apostolical Succession, 40 -The Argument from the Aaronic Priest- hood considered, 42— The Statutes of Limitation, 43— The Succession cannot be traced, 45 — The Chain has often been broken, 49. Sect. 6.— The Ignatian Epistles, 52 — Cranmer partial to Presby terianisrn, 54—The Synod of Dort and the Bishop of Llandaff, 50. Sect. 7.— Gro- tiusand Le Clerc, 58 — Melancthon, Luther, and Calvin,59— Beza, h'2. Sect. 8.— Concluding Observations. Appendix A.— Actsxiv, 23, Critically Discussed, 67. Appendix B. — No Pre- lates in the early Irish Church, 68. Appendix C— Extent of some of the early Churches, 69. LETTER II. BY THE REV. WILMAM M'CLURE, LONDONDERRY. The Pastors ofthe Christian Church of one order and of equal authority, 73— Our Lord's Re- buke of Prelacy, ib. — Identity of Presbyters and Bishops, 75 — Plurality of Rulers in the primitive Churches of Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica, 77 — Testimonies of Reformers and Divines of the Church of England in favour of Presbytery, 79 — General Observations on Arguments for Prelacy, 83 — No argument for Prelacy to be drawn from the Jewish Polity, 84 — The offices of the Twelve and Seventy considered, 87 — The nature of the Apostolic office considered, 90 — Right of Presbyters to govern the Church, £2— The alleged Prelacy of James disproved, 9c — Timothy and Titus not Prelates but Evangelists, 99 — The Angels of the Churches not Prelates, 109 — Degree of Credit due to Antiquity, 1 13 — Examination of Testimonies from Antiquity, 116 — Clemens Romanus, 117 — Polycarp, 118 — Ignatius, ib — Irenseus, 119 — Clemens Alexandrinus, ib Tertullian, 120 — Cyprian, 121 — Antiquity favourable to Presbytery 122 — Cbrysostom, ib Theodoret, ib Augustine, ib — Jerome, 123 — Presbytery identified with Primitive Episcopacy, 124 — Rise and Progress of Prelacy, 125 — Origin of Archbishops, &c, in England, 127— Early Irish Church, ib — Alleged admission of Presbyterians — Bucer, Chamier, 129 Du Moulin, 130 — Alleged Efficiency of the present Irish Church, ib Discordance among English Divines, 132 — Dr. Pusey and Mr. Boyd's English Worthies — Chillingworth, Blakely, ib Bramhall, Bent- ley, Hare, Parker, Laud, 133 — Foxe, 134 — The spirit of Prelacy Uncharitable and Persecut- ing, 135. LETTER III. BY THE REV. JAMES^DENIIAM, LONDONDERRY. Mr. Boyd's Misquotations — Statement of the Doctrines taught by the Puseyites, 137 — Real Origin of the present Controversy, 139 — English Church governed by Laymen, 139 — Ruling Elders not Laymen, M0— Mr. Boyd in Favour of an Eldership, 140— Lfividence from the Old Testament, 140 — Jewish Elders were Ecclesiastical Rulers, 141 — Evidence from the Synagogue, 112 — Jewish Synagogues of Dnine appointment, 143 — Jewish Synagogues had a regularly ordained Eldership, 144 — Circumcision and the Passover not observed in the Temple, 145 — The Synagogue the Model of the Christian Church, 145— Evidence for an CONTENTS. Eldership from the New Testament, 147 — Testimonies by learned Prelatists and Indepen- dents, 151— By Foreign Divines, 152— Elders in the early Churches. 152— Elders in the Churches of Syria, 155— Waldenses, 156 — Bohemians, 159— Elders in all the Reformed Churches of Europe, 160— Elders in the Prelatical Churches of America, 161— Elders ori- ginally in the Church of England, 162— Reasons why discontinued, 163— Mr. Boyd's de- scription of Presbyterian Elders, 164— Church Courts, 165— Acts xv, not favourable to De- mocracy in Church Government, 165 — Bishops' Courts Unscriptural and Tyrannical, 166— Sufferings and Struggles of the Church of Scotland, 168 to 173— Slavery of the Church of England, 173— Tyrants in favour of Prelacy, 174— The Queen the Head of the English Church, 174— The Clergy derive their authority to ordain and to rule from the Queen, 175 — All the Prelates appointed by the Queen, 175— Bishops' Courts regulated by Romanists, 176 — Prelates compelled to Induct, 177— Clergy compelled to Baptize, and administer the Lord's Supper to unworthy persons, 177— The People deprived of their Privileges, 179 — Flagrant abuses in the Prelatical Church, 180— Advantages of the Presbyterian Church, 181 —Christ is glorified, 182-The Doctrines taught are Scriptural, 182— Provision made for maintaining Discipline, 183— Equally removed from the Democracy of Independency and the Despotism of Prelacy, 183— Enjoys perfect Freedom, 184— Is best adapted to Evangelize the world, 185 — Supports the most effective Ministry, at the least expense — Is adapted to all situations, and possesses a remarkable power to resist Enemies, 186— Enjoys a Royal Endowment— Scriptural authority for, and advantages of, this, 187. Appendix, 190. LETTER IV. BY THE REV. ALEXANDER P. GOUDY, STItABANE. Power of the Church to decree Ceremonies examined, 193— Interpolation of the 20th Article, 193, 194— Argument from the Jewish Church, 195-Argument from the peculiar character of the Christian Church, 197— Opinions of the Reformers, 200— Power claimed by the English Church incompatible with Christian Liberty, 2u2— Nature of the Ceremonies of the Church of England, 204—They involve those who observe them in the guilt of symbolizing with Idolaters, 205— Their enforcement violates the Law of Charity, 206— They tend to promote Superstition, 207— Forms of Prayer, 208— Not used under the Jewish Dispensation, 209— No evidence of their existence in the time of Christ, 211— The Lord's Prayer, 213— Forms not used or sanctioned by the Apostles, 215— Alleged proofs from Antiquity examined, 216 —Clement, lb.-Tertullian— Origen, 217 -Cyprian, 218— Council of Laodicea, Basil, 219 —Testimony of the Fathers in favour of Unrestricted Praver, 220-Justin Martyr, Hermas, Tertullian, 221— Basil, Socrates, Ambrose, 222— Augustine, Epiphanius, 223 -Admissions of Bingham, Burnet, and King, 224-Forras not sanctioned bv the use of the Psalms, ib.— Condemned by the Reformers— Wickliffe, Knox, Calvin, 225-Objections to Free Prayer canvassed 226 -Defects and Errors of the English Liturgy, 228, 229-Oxford Popery spreading throughout the Church of England, 232, 233- Advantages of Free Prayer, 236- Best fatted to afford opportunity for the working of the Spirit, 237- Can be adapted to emergencies 239 -Calculated to have a favourable influence on Ministers, 240- Adapted to excite and sustain attention, 241, 242 -Baptism, 243-Baptismal Regeneration, 244— I his Doctrine held and taught by the English Church, ib.— Shewn to be Unscriptural, 245 Boyd s Misrepresentation of the Testimony of the Church of Scotland on this point exposed, 246- Sponsors, 247— Without warrant from Antiquity, 248-The Sponsorial sys- tem 01 the Church of England presents an erroneous view of the rite of Baptism, ib Its moral effects most injurious, 249_Ministers of the English Church forbidden by her Laws and Canons ever, on any account, to admit Parents as Sponsors, 250— Testimony of Beza, 2ol_Of the French Church, ib._Sign of the Cross, 252— Its ancient use, ib._ A Sacra- mental character ascribed to it by the English Church, 253_Testimony of Beza quoted, and Mr. Boyd s flagrant Misrepresentation of same, exposed, 254— Kneeling at the Commu- nion, ^o_rhe Kneeling posture unsuitable, to the character of the Christian Feast, 256_ Contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles, 257— Prostituted to Idolatry, 258— Condemned on this account by the Fathers and the Reformers, 261_Guill of the English ^ JrC *, m « 0nS J ' 1,UtinS this Un scriptural Usage a term of Fellowship, 262-Burial Service, *"— . Bo ? d s attera Pted Vindication of it examined, 264_Its unwarrantable character and pernicious tendency exhibited, 265, 266— Chargeable with countenancing the Popish dog- ma ol Praying for the Dead, 267— Admissions of Episcopalian Divines, ib.-Conclusion, 268. PREFACE. When appearing a second time before the public, as the writers of the following Letters, we beg to introduce ourselves by a few preliminary obser- vations. And first, we desire to recall attention to the history of the present controversy. Towards the close of the year 1837, the Bev. Mr. Boyd preached in die Deny Cathedral a series of discourses, in explanation and defence of the peculiarities of the Church of England. At the time, these sermons ex- cited considerable interest, and by Presbyterians who heard them, they were regarded as exceedingly offensive. They were, however, much applauded by the High Church party; and an address, signed by the Bishop, the Dean, and many members of the Congregation, was presented to die preacher, containing a request for their publication. With this request Mr. Boyd expressed his willingness to comply; and in the Spring of 1838, the ' Sermons on the Church' issued from the press. By some they were prized as a triumphant appeal in behalf of Prelacy, — by their admirers they were diligently handed about amongst Presbyterian families ; and they were confidently pronounced to be quite unanswerable. In the Autumn of the same year, the triennial visitation was held in Deny. On that occasion the Rev. Dr. Boyton preached a sermon, which was likewise published, in which he gave his audience to understand, that none save those who have episcopal ordination have a title to the ministry. The Presbyterian ministers of Deny and the neighbourhood conceived that these attacks were alike imprudent and gratuitous; but as they had been thus publicly challenged, they felt themselves bound in duty to their church to take up the controversy. Under these circumstances, the discourses contained in ' Presbyterianism Defended ' were preached, and subsequently published. Mr. Boyd has since replied, in a work entitled, ' Episcopacy, Ordination, Lay- eldership, and Liturgies, Considered, in Five Letters. ' To these ' Letters, ' the present volume is a rejoinder. It must be obvious, from this simple narrative of facts, that Presbyterian ministers have not been, in this case, the aggressors. The very circumstance, that ' Presbyterianism Defended ' was designed to repel assaults which had been made upon them, in itself clearly shows, that they have been forced into the controversy. In the ' Letters ' on episcopacy, an attempt is made to nrys- tify the subject; and Mr. Boyd would fondly have the public to believe that he has been provoked to the discussion. But we would ask, — Is it not a fact, that for a whole month he occupied the cathedral congregation in listening to the ' Sermons on ihc Church ' ? Can he point to a single Presbyterian minister in Ulster, who had previously addressed a congregation for four successive Sabbaths upon the peculiarities of Presbyterianism? Can he name a Presby- terian minister who had previously employed a single Sabbath in the discussion of the subject? We are satisfied that he cannot plead even one such case as an apology for his agitation of the controversy. Mr. Boyd urges that he has been annoyed by the defence of ordination, as conducted at the settlement of Presbyterian ministers. That this apology is quite an after thought, and that it did not originally induce him to come forth as a controversialist, is obvious from the fact, that one of the addresses which PREFACE. he specifics was delivered in a distant country town, upwards of five years before the publication of the ' Sermons on the Church. ' Let it also be re- membered, that the defence which he condemns has always, from time imme- morial, formed part of the service at Presbyterian ordinations. The right of Presbyters to ordain has been denied by many advocates of prelacy ; and it is therefore necessary that it should be illustrated and vindicated. On occasions when something must be said of the constitution of the church, the claims commonly advanced by the friends of the Establishment absolutely compel Presbyterians to tread on controversial ground. Episcopalians are in the habit of maintaining that they are the Church, whilst all others are treated by them as schismatics, and they are thus perpetually inviting and provoking discussion. When a diocesan bishop holds an ordination, it frequently happens that a ser- mon is preached by one of the clergy in support of episcopal prerogatives; and when the discourse is not obtruded on the public through the medium of the press, Presbyterian ministers would not complain that the introduction of the subject was uncalled for or unseasonable. And surely, when a Presbytery assembles to ordain a pastor, the officiating minister should be permitted, without gainsaying, to exercise a corresponding privilege. Mr. Boyd has qxioted several expressions, said to have been used on such occasions; but were we not restrained by the conviction that our readers could take no in- terest in the rehearsal of matters purely personal and local, we might prove that his statements are quite apocryphal. Philosophers affirm, that one cause is sufficient to produce an effect ; but Mr. Boyd seems to have felt that it would require a collection of causes, such as those he has assigned, to form even a tolerable reason for his appearance in this controversy. He therefore goes on to affirm, that he has been ag- grieved by the publication of a ' Catechism on the Government and Discip- line of the Presbyterian Church.' He ought, however, to have mentioned, that the catechism in question was called forth by another catechism, which had been previously published by the Bev. Mr. Ashe, a minister of the Esta- blished Church. It may be stated likewise that a second catechism of the same description was published in the year 1837, by the Episcopalians in Belfast. It is, besides, rather singular, that Mr. Boyd should have felt it ne- cessary to reply to a penny catechism, in a three-and-sixpenny volume. The case is rendered still more extraordinary, when it is stated, that at the time the ' Sermons on the Church ' were preached, the catechism of which he com- plains had not been put into circulation in the neighbourhood of Derry, and even Mr. Boyd himself does not appear to have been aware of its existence. Whilst the catechism of Palmer, an English Dissenter, long since dead, is frequently attached, tins little tract is not once quoted in the ' Sermons on the Church ; ' and it is very remarkable, that he does not even mention the work, of which he has given such a lengthened refutation. To the candid reader, the apologies already mentioned, as produced by Mr. Boyd, must appear superlatively frivolous. We do not hesitate to say, that what he seems to regard as his chief plea, is still more untenable. Amongst the foes of the Establishment he has not been able to name a single Presbyterian writer, but he urges at great length that his church has been assailed by the Dissenters of England. He quotes attacks from a variety of writers, whose very names are quite unknown to Irish Presbyterians. \\S& first witness is introduced by him, under the designation of the Rev. B. M. Beverley. We may remark, that Mr. Boyd, though himself but a Presbyter, has put the deponent into priest's orders ; for we have accidentally seen the pamphlet which he cites, and it is entitled ' A Lay Sermon, by B. M. Beverley, Esq.'' Of the rest of his authorities we know nothing; and we utterly condemn their language as extravagant and uncharitable. We must enter our protest against the assertion, that the statements in ' Presbyterianism Defended ' are couched PREFACE. in the same spirit. We challenge him to produce a single passage at all akin to some of those which he has quoted ; and we may add, that in that very work there are acknowledgments of the personal excellence of many. of the ministers of the Church of England, of as complimentary a character as their nfost ardent admirers could desire. The English Dissenters have spoken most unguardedly of the English estahlishment ; and yet it is only justice to state, that they have received the utmost provocation. The terms which some of the established clergy of England have applied to their dissenting brethren are absolutely fiendish. Thus, in a Letter addressed to a Dissenting Minister by the Rev. T.S.Escott, of the Established Church, dated December 29, 1839* the writer speaks of the Dissenting Ministers as ' diss cnting mountebanks , ' and as ' those beings who pretend to be ministers of the gospel, and really are minis- ters of 'hell J " It must besides be remembered, that Presbyterians have no ecclesiastical connexion with those to whom Mr. Boyd makes allusion. They are in no way involved in the proceedings of the English Dissenters. They do not accord with them either in their standards of faith, or in their mode of church government. Mr. Boyd might have pleaded with quite as much per- tinency, that his church has been attacked by the Baptists of America. He is very well aware, that upon almost all the great politico-religious questions which at present agitate the public mind, the Presbyterians and the English Independents are diametrically opposed. His book may perhaps obtain some circulation amongst churchmen on the other side of the channel, and his First Letter is exceedingly well calculated to create a prejudice against Irish Pres- byterians, in the minds of those who have no other means of information ; but we can tell him that his mode of managing the controversy in that letter is considered by all unprejudiced members of the Irish establishment as alike unjust and ungenerous. It is well known, that in her hour of need she has received the most efficient aid from Irish and Scottish Presbyterians. It is well known, that she lately appeared before them in the attitude of a petitioner, craving help for her starving ministers, and that she did not appeal to their sympathies in vain. It is well known, that Dr. Cooke, Dr. Chalmers, and a host of others, have upheld her with a zeal which by some has been regarded as excessive ; and yet, according to Mr. Boyd, the members of the Church of Scotland, as a body, are to be placed in the same category with the Dissenters of England ; and because the latter have spoken disrespectfully of his church, he must needs commence a crusade against Presbyterians. What a wise and what a grateful procedure ! Let it not be inferred from any thing which has been advanced, that we deprecate discussion. We believe that a church, constituted upon scriptural principles, has nothing to fear from the most searching scrutiny of its govern- ment and worship. But, as it may be urged, that in the present state of reli- gious parties in Ireland, the two leading denominations of Protestants should be especially careful to cultivate union and forbearance, and as Mr. Boyd has endeavoured to produce in the minds of his readers an impression that he has not been the first to take the field, we have thought it right to dissect all his apologies, and to prove that he, and he alone, should justly bear the responsibility and odium that may be attached to the originator of the contro- versy. He was well aware, as we learn from his own admission, that when he published his ' Sermons on the Church' he sounded the trumpet for battle. ' It was not unlikely y says he, ' but, that in some form or other, notice woiddhave been taken of a volume which has obtained a value from the appro- val of the congregation who listened to its contents, and requested their publi- cation.'! He alleges, however, that it has called forth four combatants * Sue the Statesman and DuAlin Christian Record for Friday, January 31st, 1640. f Letters, pp. 2, :3. iv PREFACE. against one. We cannot see with what propriety he can make such a decla- ration. If the Rev. T. D. Gregg he a mere cipher, surely the llev. Dr. Hoyton is not so very insignificant a personage that he may be altogether over- looked. In consequence of the attacks that had been made, it was considered desirable that something like a full exhibition of Presbyterian principles should be presented to the public. The task was accordingly undertaken by four ministers, who distributed among themselves the different topics to be discussed. A prelate or a rector may enjoy an ample share of learned leisure ; even a curate of the Derry cathedral may be occasionally found strangely attending to ' the engagements of parochial duty ' by retiring for a whole summer to a pleasant watering-place ; but a pastor of the Presby- terian Church must remain at home, and he cannot generally calculate on much assistance in the discharge of his manifold and arduous duties. It was therefore deemed unreasonable to impose the entire burthen of the controversy on a single minister. A considerable part of ' Presbyterianism Defended ' has no reference to the ' Sermons on the Church, ' and if Mr. Boyd, in coming forward a second time before the public, has appeared alone — if he has volun- teered to defend both Dr. Boyton and himself- — and if he has undertaken to handle various other topics with which neither were particularly concerned — we do not see how he can lay claim to sympathy for such a display of unne- cessary chivalry. It is well known that his ministerial engagements are not very oppressive, and that in cases such as this he can withdraw altogether from the field of parochial labour. Besides, he is at liberty to employ as many assistants as he pleases ; and if the object sought be not personal dis- tinction, but the maintenance of truth, the number employed on either side must be a matter of convenience. We trust that the religious public regard the present controversy not as a theological tilting-match, but as a grave dis- cussion of important principles. The existence of an order of ecclesiastical dignitaries, who are not immediately engaged in the active duties of the ministry, has often been defended upon the principle, that such men can de- vote themselves to literature, and employ the pen in the service of the church. Surely, then, Mr. Boyd could be in no want of powerful auxiliaries. If the mind of the bishop was engrossed with the cares of government and ordina- tion, the dean could not plead such an apology — for certainly he is quite un- occupied ; and, as in the first instance, he recommended Mr. Boyd to publish the ' Sermons on the Church, ' might not he have stepped forth to the assis- tance of his friend ; and as, according to the reason assigned for the existence of his office, he must have been long in special training for such service, might not he, like an experienced veteran, armed at all points, have spread confusion and dismay amongst the assailants of the hierarchy ? Whilst, how- ever, the dignitaries continue to enjoy their literary leisure, Mr. Boyd is left to bear the entire weight of this discussion ; and though, from the praise be- stowed upon him in Episcopal reviews and magazines, we might infer that he is generally acknowledged as the selected champion of his party, we are not yet prepared to form so low an estimate of the resources of one of the Estab- lished churches of the empire, as to imagine that he is her most ingenious and learned advocate. The writer, who makes so many and so gross mistakes in chronology and history, whose knowledge of Greek and Latin is so superficial, and whose references even to Scripture and theology sometimes betray the most melancholy ignorance, is not surely the most accomplished divine who can be found to plead the cause of ' England's Zion.' Had not other avo- cations interfered, any one of the individuals whose names are appended to the following letters might have managed the entire controversy, and replied to all the arguments in his late volume. But, as Mr. Boyd has addressed himself to them individually, and as he seems desirous to receive a reply from each, he has obtained the gratification which he coveted. There is a charm PREFACE. v in variety, and the task, thus divided, has been felt to be the less irk- some. In these preliminary observations we deem it right to notice the contempt- uous and self-sufficient tone which Mr. Boyd has assumed throughout this con- troversy. Higher motives ought certainly to have influenced a Christian minister; but had he even considered either his rank in the church, or his standing in the world of letters, he should have seen the propriety of greater humility and moderation. He ought to have considered that, every one of those whom he addresses has received an education at least as exact and as extensive as his own, and that, in as far as the Church catholic is concerned, every one of them occupies a more important and influential station. His sneers at the stupidity and ignorance of his opponents may please his more devoted partizans, but they are altogether lost upon those whom they are in- tended to annoy. He alleges that our information has been obtained at second-hand, whilst he declares that he has copied fro?n the originals themselves , and we have therefore been compelled to unmask his assuming and unlearned pedantry. The very circumstance that he has been unable to detect us in a single instance misrepresenting the meaning of an author, is a triumph- ant proof that our information has been derived from the most respectable authorities ; but we can demonstrate, that in various cases he evidently can- not to)\from what source his quotations are extracted, and that he does not even know in what language the originals are written. The individual who can speak of the four epistles of Ignatius — who can repeatedly quote Eusebius as a Latin father — and who can refer first to the eighteenth then to the second, and then to the fourteenth Homily of Origen on Jeremiah, for a passage of which he evidently knows not the location, must surely be pro- foundly conversant with the literature of the ancient church. If his presump- tuous flippancy has sometimes been severely handled in the following letters, he has certainly no cause to murmur. If his barefaced misquotation and his perpetual blundering have been faithfully exposed, he has only himself to blame. In a multitude of cases, the original statements, after having passed the Index E.vpurgatorious of Mr. Boyd, are so changed or mutilated, that they differ very little from downright forgeries. It is distressing to be obliged to use such language in reference to a Christian minister, for, though we thus speak, we believe that many good things are found in him, and we trust that ' when he comes to himself, ' he will profit by these plain announcements, and learn for the future to adhere to the words of truth and soberness. It is to be regretted, that the nature of the following work has prevented us from exhibiting more fully the symmetry and strength of the Presbyterian polity. We believe that Presbyterianism presents the only perfect form of church government. According to the system of the English church, the chief management of ecclesiastical affairs is committed to those who are in a great measure irresponsible, for the highest functionaries are themselves under no spiritual oversight. If it be alleged that they are amenable to the crown, a gross deficiency is thus acknowledged, for it is admitted that the spiritual acts of the most exalted office-bearers of the church are subject to the revision and condemnation of a lag superior. The Presbyterian Church places all its members under complete control. The humblest individual in a congrega- tion is not liable to be oppressed by the tyranny of the minister, for he is ac- countable only to the session, or the eldership — the most distinguished pastor cannot spurn the restraints of ecclesiastical discipline, for he must bow to the decisions of his brethren of the Presbytery. Presbyterianism is the only system which carries out into full and efficient operation the spirit of the apostolical injunction, — ' Yea, all of you be subject one to another. '* » 1 Petez v. o. PREFACE. It might bo shown, that by means of Presbyterian arrangements, the church is best enabled to do her duty. She can thus maintain the most vigilant and vigorous discipline. She can thus best secure the doctrinal purity of her ministers, and she can thus best promote the practical piety of her people. When she is required to move forward in the work of Sabbath-school instruc- tion, or of temperance, or of church extension, or of foreign missions, she can easily make a great and simultaneous effort. When she is attacked, her con- gregations can act in concert, and she can immediately bear down with all her influence upon the common assailant. Every Presbyterian pastor is a bishop invested with the power of jurisdiction and of order— he is therefore furnished with the means of more extensive usefulness, for as he is entrusted with the care of all the churches, he may improve the condition of the most distant portion of the ecclesiastical community. When a pious and highly-gifted minister appears in a prelatical church, his energies are sadly crippled, and the religious body with which he is connected, cannot reap the full benefit of his talents and his devotedness. The oligarchy of his church stands in his way, and a prelate, simply by the issue of an inhibition, may arrest and disgrace him when he is in the very noon-tide of his usefulness. There is another point of view in which the advantages of the Presbyterian system conspicuously appear. It is, we conceive, admirably adapted to the present state of Ireland. Though the great mass of our countrymen are en- slaved to the Romish superstition, yet they seem to be fully alive to the im- portance of free institutions. We do not indeed sympathise with them in their political struggles, for we regard the aggrandizement of popery as an evil of the greatest magnitude. Still, however, it cannot be denied that they have been for years in a high state of political excitement, and that they have been long taught to canvass the merits of our civil government. They are wont to denounce sinecures and favouritism, an oligarchy, and despotical authority ; and yet, in the ecclesiastical arrangements of the Church of England, as well as of their own, they must acknowledge the existence of all those evils which they politically deprecate. But in the Presbyterian Church the people are invested with their just rights, the pastors are elected by popular suffrage, the ecclesiastical discipline is administered by tribunals that cannot be fairly suspected of partiality, nepotism and non-residence are unknown, all the clergy who are supported by the church must labour in the word and doctrine, and the pastors must act, not as lords over God's heritage, but as the servants of the people for Jesus' sake. May it not then occur to our 11. Catholic countrymen, that as members of the church they should support a system which, as members of the state, they admire so en- thusiastically ? May they not see that Presbyterianism bears upon its front the impress of a divine warrant ? There is a class of readers who will, we trust, very seriously ponder the statements adduced in these letters. We refer to those young persons who de- sign to embrace the ministerial profession. Such individuals are in a very inte- resting position, for as there are two great sections of the Protestant church in Ireland ready to enlist them, they are bound to enquire with which they should join themselves. As in the sight of the Head of the church, they should weigh the claims of the respective systems, and they should not per- mit considerations of wealth, or connexions, or fashion, or worldly respecta- bility, to influence their decisions. The church should be a witness for Christ, and every one who unites himself to a church with a determination to conform to her admitted corruptions, is a traitor and a hypocrite. We can make due allowance for the power of habit and of prejudice ; we know that there are many most excellent pastors of the Church of England who conceive that her defects are not so gross as to warrant their secession ; but those to whom we refer are in different circumstances, and their minds are more open PREFACE. to conviction. After they have perused the following pages, we would say to them, in all seriousness — Do you believe that the government of the English church is apostolic, and that her forms are scriptural *? Has it not been clearly shown that the people were originally permitted to choose their pastors, and are you therefore warranted to intrude yourselves upon congregations without their invitation ? Is it not evident that, in ordinary circumstances, the popu- lar call is as necessary as the ecclesiastical sanction ? If ministers were set apart to their office in the apostolic age ' by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery, ' do you conceive that you may lawfully disregard a divine ordi- nance, and submit to prelatic ordination ? If there be no recognition in the New Testament of the office of a diocesan bishop, should you join a church in which this interpolated functionary exercises the ruling power and occu- pies the most prominent position ? Should you connect yourself with a so- ciety in whose government you have no share, and for the removal of whose abuses you can make no effort? If discipline be an ordinance of God, do you believe that you can administer it fearlessly, faithfully, and effectively, in the Church of England ? Lastly, we would say, are you not persuaded that the baptismal and the burial services are unscriptural and absurd, and are you prepared, by entering the 'ministry in the church of England, solemnly to pledge yourselves to the perpetual use of these formularies ? The situation of a man who is obliged constantly to appear as the representative of a church, whose constitution and government he inwardly condemns, is indeed most pitiable. The Presbyterian Church in Ireland, now happily consolidated by the union of the General and Secession Synods, can at present afford ample employment to a large influx of able and evangelical ministers, and should any feel, after the reading of these letters, that they can no longer join the Establishment with a safe conscience, we would at once say to them — ' Come over and help us. ' Whilst we contend that the system of prelacy is essentially unscriptural, and whilst we strenuously protest against many of its formularies, we beg our readers distinctly to remember, that we regard the Episcopal establishment as a section of the church of Christ. In its articles it exhibits the outline of an evangelical confession, and a goodly number of its ministers and people are instructive specimens of the power of godliness. We regret that they do not adopt the more excellent way of our polity and worship, and yet we can- not but love them for the truth's sake, that dwelleth in them. Mr. Boyd has not disclaimed the statements of those, by whom Presbyterians have been handed over to the uncovenated mercies of the Lord — he seems to think that if our ordinances be valid, it must be owing to some mysterious princi- ple which he is totally unable to illustrate — but the system of Presbytery is more catholic, and we can easily account for the existence of grace beyond the boundary line of our own denomination. We trust that the present con- troversy will not dispose pious prelatists and Presbyterians to regard each other with less affection, for, even in this world, all who hold ' the faith of God's elect, ' notwithstanding their ecclesiastical peculiarities, may main- tain pleasant, and profitable, and cordial fellowship. Let the reader candidly weigh the arguments on both sides, and leaving entirely out of view the per- sonal merit of the disputants, let him hold fast to what, upon mature considera- tion, appears to be supported by the Holy Scriptures. In this volume the subjects are discussed in the same order as in ' Presby- terianism Defended. ' Mr. Boyd has thought proper to pursue a difi'erent course, but we have not seen cause to deviate from our original arrangement. LETTER I. BY THE REV. W. D. KILLEN, RAPHOE. The Ministerial Title — The Rights of the People in the Election of Ministcrs- Presbyterial Ordination — Apostolical Succession. TO THE REV. A. BOYD, CURATE OF THE CATHEDRAL, LONDONDERRY. Sir, — Under other circumstances, I might perhaps feel flattered by the favourable terms in which you are pleased to address me, at the commencement of your letter. You must know, however, that I cannot consider myself as com- plimented by the praise which is given at the expense of my brethren. You appear to be well acquainted with the arts of controversy, and you doubtless saw that a few encomiums might be safely expended on the obscure pas- tor of Raphoe, if they could be raised by way of fine from the ministers of Strabane and Lon- donderry. For this, and various other reasons which shall presently appear, I do not attach any special importance to your literary certifi- cate. SECT. I. — THE OCCASION OF THE PRESENT CONTROVERSY. You seem to think it strange that I have taken any part in this controversy. I confess I do not see how I could have consistently acted otherwise. You have utterly failed to shew that, in this quarter of the province, any attack whatever had been made upon your church through the medium of the press, and therefore the publication of your Sermons was an act of wanton aggression. Some time after their appearance, Dr. Boy ton's Discourse was published, — it was highly lauded in the news- papers, — and it was represented as a needful check upon the rising prosperity of Presby- terianism. Your sermons were throughout an indirect attack upon Presbyterian government and discipline; and Dr. Boyton, as I conceived, expressly denied the validity of my ministerial commission. I have been placed as a watch- man upon the walls of Zion, and I could not notice these tilings without concern. I saw that the church of which I was a minister had been repeatedly and publicly assailed, and that I must either be prepared tamely to witness her humiliation, or to take part in her defence. I was fully persuaded that her system of eccle- siastical polity was capable of a tri umphant vin- dication, and I did not hesitate to appear in her behalf. Was there not a cause ? I alleged in my Discourse, as published in ' Presbyterianism Defended,' that the position assumed by the Rev. T. D. Gregg, of the Es- tablished Church, in his late discussion with the Rev. T. Maguire, indirectly stigmatised all the other Protestant chinches in the empire. And how do you apologise for that gentleman? You say he ' took up the ground he assumed, be- cause he felt that it gave him a vantage ground against his opponent. '* Ah, sir, do you ven- ture to vindicate the position that the end jus- tifies the means? Can a righteous cause require the sacrifice of any catholic principle? And when the interests of Protestantism are in jeo- pardy, are we to applaud the tactics of a cham- pion of the Church of England, whose very first act is to seize upon all the other Protestant churches of the Empire, and to tlnow them as a sop to the Roman Cerberus? Surely not. If we would contend successfully for the truth, we must begin by an ' acknowledgment of the truth. 'f In assailing Popery we must plant our batteries upon the broad foundations of evangelical Protestantism, and then, with the artillery of the Word, we may hope to beat down the walls of the seven-hilled city. You appear to think that I have not fairly stated the proceedings of the Christian Know- ledge Society relating to the Scottish Prelates. You complain that I have taken my information ' at second hand. ' You must permit me to say, that you are sometimes unnecessarily scrupu- lous, and that your zeal for ' the originals ' seems to have fairly mastered your common sense. The Presbyterian Review, to which I referred as my authority, contains a narrative of the transaction, borrowed from the London Record. I have always understood that the Record newspaper is conducted by ministers of the Church of England, and therefore I did not suppose that it would misrepresent the pro- * Letters, p. 1 19. + Titus, i. 1. THE CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY.— DR. BOYTON'S SERMON. g ceedings of the Established clergy. But where was I to go for primary information? Was I to address a letter of inquiry to the President of the Society, even his grace the Archbishop of Canterbury:' I have not the presumption to imagine that the Most Reverend Prelate would deign to enter into a correspondence with the present bishop ofRaphoe. You have produced extracts from some of the speeches made on the occasion, and now, may I be permitted to ask you, have you verily quoted from the originals themselves ? I am quite willing to concede that, at least here, you have not been indebted to any 'popular furnishing treatises.' But have you really communicated with the speakers, and obtained from them your extracts ? I must admit that, in the explanations which you fur- nish, you have shown very great address. You make a parade of some of the most liberal sen- timents expressed, and a ' superficial reader would scarcely observe, that the gentlemen by whom lhi\i/ were uttered were left in a minority, and that a motion was carried in the very teeth of their declarations ! What was the language commonly used by those who supported the suc- cessful resolution? It was such as follows: — " It was merely accidental thatPresbyterianism had been established in Scotland, and the Board ought not to recognise that community as a church. If the amendment were adopted, they might as well blot the words out of the creed —One catholic and apostolic church."* — When Dr. Short, the proposer of the motion which passed, was asked by Mr. Clarke, " iclic- thvr he considered the Presbyterians of Scotland to be a church?" he replied, " that he could not admit Mr. Clarke's right to put that ques- tion, and he must decline answering it." He might, indeed, very safely say, as you have quoted, that " such an idea as that of un- churching any church had never entered into his head." But if the motion which was car- ried, was not generally considered as an insult to the Church of Scotland, why were the con- ductors of the Record newspaper so indignant ? Why had the authority of the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury to be called into requisition, and why had the Bishop of Lon- don to use all his personal influence, at a sub- sequent meeting, to quash the previous pro- ceeding? You are to observe, too, that after all, the Presbyterian Establishment of Scotland was mil recognised as a church. Even the Bi- shop of London, in the speech from which you give an extract, cautiously ermles the question. " If any member,'' said lie coolly, " wishes this subject to be discussed, he can prepare a tract in relation in it, and submit it regularly for con- sideration." And now, Reverend Sir, with all these facts before you, can you venture to affirm, that the Christian Knowledge Society has not given just cause of offence to the Church of Scotland ? You insinuate that I have misapplied Or. Boyton'8 allusions when he speaks of those who deliver Christ's message, but who do not * Presbyterian Review, for February, 1838. hold Christ's commission. You say — "You are not named in his Sermon, and it had been more dignified not to have taken to yourselves expressions which very likely were never in- tended for your body. " * I must confess that I have never been very much accustomed to stand upon my dignity, and being only a pri • mitive bishop I have no factitious dignity to support. But if Dr. Boy ton's observations do not clearly apply to Presbyterian ministers, I must say that they aro altogether without meaning, — his trumpet has given, not indeed an uncertain, but an empty sound. Dr. Boyton himself has never yet disclaimed the applica- tion, and subsequent occurrences have abun- dantly established its propriety. You throw out a hint that he may yet reply to my remarks, significantly adding, " and that with more power than his opponents may choose to ex- perience." I intend, reverend sir, to support nothing but the truth, — I conceive that, as a minister of the New Testament, I would be heaping wrath upon my own head were I to contend for any thing besides,— and if either Dr.Boyton, or any other member of your church, can point out to me the incorrectness of the views which I have set forth in my Discourse, I trust that I shall feel grateful for his inter- ference, and that I shall experience nothing but pleasure from his expositions. You indeed have completely failed in your attempts, — you have only imparted to me a deeper conviction of the strength of my original principles, — and if Dr. Boyton have no better arguments to bring forth, I presume that he will not be any- thing more successful. It would doubtless be rather hard, if a single individual, without even a " commission, " were to be assailed succes- sively by two such veterans of apostolical descent and of plenary authority ; but yet, strange to say, I do not anticipate the onset with any great alarm ; for though I have no confidence in myself, I have great confidence in my cause ; and truth, wielded by an arm feeble as my own, has often prostrated a more formidable champion than either Mr. Boyd or Dr. Boyton. I shall now proceed to consider in detail the topics of you letter. SECT. II. — THE MINISTERIAL TITLE. As you appear to think that I have not ex- pressed my views regarding a call to the mi- nistry, with sufficient perspicuity, and as you do not seem to apprehend my meaning very clearly, I shall again state and illustrate my sentiments. I hold, then, that every one wdio has certain qualifications, such as I have de- scribed in my Discourse, f has a title to the ministry. At the same time, I do not con- found the qualifications with the commission. An individual may have a title to the magis- tracy — he may be appointed by the Lord Chan- cellor — and yet he may not actually be in the commission of the peace. Before he can re- gularly discharge magisterial functions, he * Letters, p. 119. + Presbytcrianism Defended, p. 45. 10 THE MINISTERIAL TITLE. must go through the prescribed forms, and take the oaths of admission. Farther, a man may have a title to an estate which he may never actually enjoy. I may be heir at law to an inheritance which another now occupies, and yet if I do not press my claims through the medium of the proper courts, I cannot ex- pect to gain possession of my birthright. I believe I cannot better illustrate my views regarding a title to the ministry, than by re- ferring to a distinction pointed out by Sir William Blackstone, in his " Commentaries on the Laws of England." In his chapter on " The title to things real," * he distinguishes the right of property and the right of possession. I shall not now take into account his explanations relating to mere possession, and I shall suppose that the right of possession and the right of pro- perty constitute a complete title to an estate. If lands have been held by one individual or his predecessors, for a certain term of years, he acquires the right of possession, and any other individual who attempts to seize on the premises, may be summarily extruded. It may be, however, that the original possession of the lands has been obtained illegally, and then the party who has been defrauded still retains the right of property. The right of pro- perty is the superior title, and he to whom it appertains, by applying to the courts of law, may again obtain the right of possession. You will at once perceive, that when the title to things temporal is contrasted with the title to the ministry, the parallel, in many points, is imperfect ; but I mention it to shew that a complete title to the latter, is of a complex de- scription. In as far then as the ministry is concerned, I hold that every one who possess- es certain qualifications, has what may be called the right of property. This is the superior title, and it is received immediately from Christ. I fully concur with you when you say, " No man is a pastor of God's making, unless he be duly qualified by God." f I hold, moreover, that this title requires to be supple- mented by what may be ciilled the right of possession. I believe that, according to the New Testament, this right of possession is vested in the Church. If I may borrow an- other expression from Blackstone, it is held in "joint tenancy" by the people and the church court. It belongs to the people to elect, it be- longs to the church court to sanction and to or- dain. I regard ordination as the final act by which a title to the ministry is acknowledged and consummated. So long as the Church is constituted upon scriptural principles, every one who conceives he has what may be called the right of property, should proceed to sup- plement his title, by seeking to obtain what * Book ii, chap. 13. + Letters, p. 1 23. — I observe that some of your pages have the following headings—" Creation of pastors by the people — The right of the laity in the creation of ministers." Such language appears to me exceedingly oh. jectionable. It is certainly very much at variance with the passage quoted above. Do you believe that even a bishop can create a pastor -' may be called the right of possession. And so long as the Church is in a sound condition, the man who rushes into the ministry without having secured this right of possession, has not, like an honest shepherd, entered the sheep- fold by the door, but may justly be suspected as a thief who is come " to steal and to kill and to destroy." But perhaps you may say, if he who has what I call the right of property, be not at liberty to enter into the ministry, unless he also have what I call the right of possession, and if this right of possession is to be obtained, at least hi part from his predecessors in the ministry, am I not still involved in the diffi- culties of the doctrine of succession ? I an- swer, no. There are some churches in which the Christian people are not permitted to elect their ministers, and in which the clergy have assumed entirely to themselves, what I have called the right of possession. But according to the New Testament, the franchise is still vested in the people, and if they do not assert its exercise, they forego a privilege which is their birthright. I would not say, however, that in consequence of this irregularity, those who are admitted to the ministry in such churches, have no valid ordination. But again, when the clergy of a particular church, have, from shepherds, become ravening wolves, and when they have openly denied the doctrines of salvation, I would say, that they thus forfeit their share in what I have called the right of possession. And as in the case of an estate held by two parties in joint-tenancy, the out- lawry of one confers the whole property on the other, so when the ecclesiastical authorities have proved traitors to the Son of God, the entire right of admission to the ministry be- comes vested for the time in the Christian people. You will perceive that I have here supposed an extreme case, and that even thus, the prin- ciple which I originally propounded, is still capable of a thorough vindication. I conceive, that it is at once simple and satisfactory. Did my argument require it, I might now proceed to apply the principle to details, and point out how it solves a multitude of difficulties con- nected with the ministerial commission. It gives glory to Christ, for it recognises Him as the King of the church, from whom alone a valid title to the ministry can emanate — it honours the Scriptures, for it acknowledges them as the charter from which the people and the church courts derive their power — it avoids the countless perplexities and absurdities con- nected with the doctrine of apostolical succes- sion — it confounds the Romanists — and it sup- plies us with unanswerable arguments by which every one who is truly a sectary may be ex- posed and put to shame. And here, perhaps, I may be permitted to mention an incident lately reported in the public prints, which may be adduced in confirmation of these positions. It has been stated, that a minister of the Established Church was some time since sent out by the Home Mission, to preach in various THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. 11 districts of the country where Popery is domi- nant. As he was addressing the people in a school-house, two Romish priests were ob- served to enter, and towards the conclusion of the service, they rudely interrupted him by the question — Where, sir, is your commission ? They supposed that the preacher would begin immediately to speak of his genealogical de- scent, and they imagined he would be unable to explain how he could derive his title from a church which scornfully disowned bim, and of which they were themselves the ac- credited representatives. But the good man acted more wisely. He replied to their in- terrogatory by holding up his Bible. The priests did not anticipate such an answer — he had attacked them with a two-edged sword which they could not handle, and after giving utterance to some incoherent sentences, they took their departure in evident confusion. They could not stand before the Word, for their own commission would have been as- suredly found wanting, had it been tried by the standard of the law and the testimony. SECT. III. — THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. The next point you take up, is the right of the people to elect their ministers. And here you notice the argument drawn from the 1st chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. I had pointed to that chapter, as supplying a case in which one of the highest office-bearers of the church was elected by a popular assembly, Your observations in reply, remind me of the Midianites when attacked by Gideon, for every one's sword is against his fellow, throughout all the host. You at first seem inclined to don/ that Matthias was elected by the multi- tude, and in support of this position you adduce some very frivolous and pointless criticisms. You then proceed to prove that the multitude ou this occasion could be safely entrusted ivillt the election of an apostle. I deem it quite un- necessary to dwell on your remarks, as in themselves they are perfectly suicidal. I shall, therefore, simply lay before you the statement of the sacred historian : " In those days, Peter atood up in the midst of the disciples, and said (the number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, of these men which have accompanied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us ; beginning from the bap- tism of John unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be (or rather be made or become yivitrQca,) a wit- ness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed tiro ; Joseph called IJarsabas, who was sumamed Justus, and Matthias."* I should think that the Evangelist has here ex- pressed himself with sufficient precision. He surely means that Peter Stood Dp in the midst <>f tin' disciples, amounting in number to one hundred and twenty — that he addressed these Acts, i, 15, 10,21—23. one hundred and twenty disciples as men and brethren, telling them that an individual, par- ticularly qualified, must be appointed to fill up the vacancy created by the death of the traitor Judas. When he says " they appointed two" docs he not, according to the plain grammati- cal construction, allude to the one hundred and twenty men and brethren whom he had pre- viously addressed ? Why, indeed, should he have proposed the matter to the consideration of the multitude, if he had determined that they should not be permitted to interfere ? Why impertinently submit to them a question with which they had no concern ? I should think, that every unprejudiced reader would at once adopt the interpretation I have sug- gested, as the obvious and undoubted mean- ing. You contend, that the people are not competent to judge of the gifts of a minister, and yet you admit that they might have been suffered to choose an apostle. " All," you say, " that ivas expected in the candidate, was the simple qualification, that he should be able, from personal observation, to testify that the same Jesus whose course he had noticed, whose actions he had seen, had actually re- appeared upon earth after his interment in the sepul- chre of Joseph. Of this qualification, so simple, so easily ascertained, the people could easily be judges."* You strangely misappre- hend the design of Peter's address. You seem to think that any one who had attended upon our Lord's ministry, and who had seen him after his resurrection, might have been selected as an apostle. Upon this principle a woman might have been chosen, for female testimony could not be rejected as inadmissable. But it is clear from the whole strain of Peter's speech, that the choice which the people were to make was a matter of the deepest importance. A " bishopric" was to be filled up, an overseer for the church was to be named, an individual was to be appointed to take part of the " mi nit- try and apostlcship."f In addition to all the endowments befitting a primitive bishop, the apostle must, besides, possess qualifications such as those which you have mentioned. Peter evidently felt that the people were called upon to make a choice which required the ex- ercise of the greatest discrimination. When he says, that one must be ordained " to be a iriturss" of Christ's resurrection, the meaning plainly is, that he was to bear witness by jircarhiny as well as otherwise. The people were to consider not only who was cognisant of the facts, but also, who could proclaim them most effectively. You affirm, that in this in- stance, " the people could easily lie judges," but the people themselves contemplated the matter very differently. They exercised the franchise so far as to pitch upon two eligible candidates, but under a sense of the responsi- bility of their situation, they did not venture to proceed farther. Surely if the rights of the people were acknowledged here, they may safely be recognised in every other case of * Letters, p. 120. + Acts, I, 25 13 THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE IN THE ELECTION OF MINISTERS. ministerial appointment You seem, indeed, fairly puzzled by the plain language of the record, and therefore, to alleviate your per- plexity, you apply to Hugo Grolius and John Angel] James. Truly, sir, necessity "hath made you acquainted with strange companions." Who would expect to see James, au uncom- promising Independent ; and Grotius, an anti- evangelical Remonstrant, and Mr. Boyd, an orthodox Episcopalian, taking sweet counsel together ? But all will not do. If we are to rely on mere authorities, I can produce a tes- timony as weighty as that of this hopeful tri- umvirate. I can quote the commentary of an African Synod, held about the middle of the third century. And surely, Mr. Boyd, attended by a Dutch lawyer and a Birmingham " sec- tary," must present a very sorry figure, when contrasted with the martyr Cyprian at the head of full thirty-seven African bishops. You are to observe, also, that these bishops not only express their own sentiments, but likewise vin- dicate the practice then generally pursued throughout the African chinches. " An ordi- nation," say they, " is performed in a fan and regular maimer, which has been sanctioned by the suffrage said judgment of all. Which prin- ciple, according to divine instructions, is after- wards observed in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter speaks to the people concerning the ordination of an apostle in the room of Judas. Peter rose up, saith the evangelist, in the midst of the disciples, for the multitude was assembled. We are to notice that the apostles observed this, not only in the case of bishops and priests, but also in ordaining dea- cons, concerning which very circumstance, it is written in their Acts — And the twelve, saith the evangelist, called together the whole multitude of the disciples, and said to them," &c* The concluding portion of this extract intro- duces me to the next point you have examined —the argument drawn from the election of the seven deacons. When I say the seven dea- cons, I speak advisedly, and I am glad to per- ceive, that in your ' Letters' you have distin- guished these officers by the same designation. You say that " the duty for the fulfilment of which they were specially chosen, was secu- lar,"f that they were in fact merely guardians for the poor. I thank you even for such a concession. You are to observe, however, that these functionaries were ordained bg the laying on of lite hands >\f the apostles to the manage- ment of this merely secular business. What then can be said for the deacons of the Church of England ? They are not deacons such as the apostles constituted, for they are not or- dained to the charge of temporal affairs. The deacons of the apostolic age were such as are recognised in the ' Form of Church Go- vernment,' drawn up by the Assembly of Di- vines at Westminster,]: and though at present in this country they are in general very im- perfect!] represented by the committees of our * Cyprian, Kpist.Kvii. Oxford, 1682. + Letters, p. 128. X See Confession of faith, p. 'ill. Presbyterian congregations, I know that the attention of the Synod of Ulster has lately been directed to the subject, and ere long I hope to see the order restored to its primitive condition. You allege that the people " were merely permitted to select and, nominate" the deacons. But you must admit, at least in this case, that the apostles did not ordain indivi- duals to an office after they had simply ob- tained the consent of the congregation. The people were invited to take the lead, they were instructed to select and nominate. You affirm, with strange inconsistency, that " the people had no voice in the appointment." If the peo- ple of Derry permit me to " select and nomi- nate" a member for their maiden city, I will undertake to furnish them with a staunch Pres- byterian representative, and I will forego the empty privilege of boasting, that I have a voice in the appointment. The apostles indeed say, " Look ye out among you seven men of honest report,. . . .whom we may appoint (or establish, KUTaffrriffof^iv) over this business."* But is it not clear, that in the beginning of this sen- tence they point out the rights of the people, and that in the conclusion they assert their own ? We have here an example of that hold- ing by joint-tenancy which I have already de- scribed. It belongs to the people to select and nominate. It belongs to the office-bearers of the church to approve and to ordain. You state, that in our congregations, the ap- pointment " lies with the stipend payers." But you are to observe, that the Presbyterian chinch recognises the principle of popular elec- tion, and if the franchise be not wisely vested, your cause can gain nothing. You are aware, perhaps, that the stipend-payers who Tote at the election of a minister, must be connected with the Presbyterian church, and members of the vacant congregation. Besides, no in- dividual can be chosen unless supported by two thirds of the electors. I do not believe that the apostle Paul would have joined in the ordination of a presbyter, when a large portion of the people were opposed to his settlement. It would be absurd to say, that a few factious characters should be allowed, successfully, to resist the appointment of a candidate ; but I hold, that in every case, the individual to be ordained should have such a majority in his favour as may be supposed fairly to represent the general concurrence of the flock. I am in- clined to think, that the primitive elections were nearly, if not altogether, unanimous. And in support of this assertion, I would refer to a passage in Clemens Romanus, which you have unhappily mistranslated. Allow me to present you with the true rendering : " There- fore we do not think that those who were con- stituted by them (the apostles) or afterwards by other eminent men, with tlie approbation of I he whole church, + and who, with humility of * Acts, vi. 3. + Your translation of the words, aviivbox.rttra.irvis rnf \kk\yiitiu.s Ta.ho rfriiixl that iMtvwtth a genitive often signifies by, or by means of. Let the reader compare Acts xv, 1, ami Acts xv, 12, ami he may see that ^it' u'vtZv and 3<" a.urX> are equivalent. Bee, also, Acts, xiv, 27. but by the collective hody. Even supposing that the apostle himself had been in the chair on the occasion, the case would not be changed. The House of Commons may send a message to her Majesty, which may bo presented by their Speaker, hut we would not, therefore, overlook the influential assembly by which ho was deputed, and say that the communication proceeded from their Right Honourable Re- presentative. The Ecclesiastical Commission- ers are empowered, by Act of Parliament, to make grants of lands to their tenantry, and yet no single member of the commission, however distinguished, can act independently of his fel- lows, and execute leases by his individual authority. Had Paul, therefore, been present at the ordination of Timothy, the value of this testimony would remain unimpaired, for it is expressly stated by the Holy Spirit that the ministerial commission was conveyed by the PRESBYTERY. I am now, sir, warranted in asserting, that your ordination is irregular. You have con-, nected with your establishment, no ecclesi- astical judicatory corresponding to the ancient presbytery. You have neither been elected to your office by the suffrages of the people, nor invested with it by the proper church court. You may say that presbyters laid their hands upon your head, but they did not act in a cor- porate capacity, they did not exercise the pri- vilege as members of an ecclesiastical judica- to>y : They did not even profess to invest you with any ministerial power. You have not, therefore, been ordained like Timothy, by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. But I do not impeach the validity of your ordina- tion. A title to an estate may be exceedingly imperfect, and yet, under all the circumstan- ces, even a cautious purchaser may be willing to give a large sum of money for the property. Let us now consider your objections to the second case of presbyterial ordination which I mentioned, tho ordination of Paul by the pres- bytery of Antioch. When I refer to this as a case of ordination, you seem to be greatly struck with the novelty of the idea, for you speak of it as a " curious opinion." * You have here given no very remarkable proof of the amount of your reading; your acquaint- ance, even with the theologians of your own church, cannot be extensive, inasmuch as many of your most distinguished divines, such as Dr. Hammond, f Archbishop Wake, J and others, have recognised this proceeding at Antioch as a case of ordination. § Even your quotation from Doddridge is sufficient to prove, that in this matter I have no claim to originality. The passage you adduce from that author is * Letters, p. 143. + Paraphrase on Acts xiii, 2, 3. t Preliminary Discourse of the Catholic Epistle of St. Barnabas. Section v. 8 I may here also mention the name of the venerable Matthew Henry, not becuuse you will attach any im- portance to his authority, hut because a writer in The Belfast Ulster Times, when reviewing 'Presbjterian- i ,m I lefended,' bad the temerity to assert the contrary. See Henry's Commentary on Acts xiii. 20 ACTS XIII. 1—3. CONSIDERED. very little to the purpose, for J do not hold the particular view which it condemns. When I mention the name of Doddridge, I may obsi rve, once for all, that he was an Independent, and though a pious and learned commentator, yet his opinion upon a question of church govern- ment, in a controversy between Presbyterians and Prelatists, is altogether destitute of autho- rity. You are evidently confounded by this clear testimony from the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, and you do not, therefore, make an effort to give even a plausible explanation of the transaction. If this passage do not describe a case of ordination, may I ask you, what is the meaning of the ceremony of which it treats ? Suppose that your clergy were to congregate in Deny, that the officials of the diocese were all in attendance, and that a stranger, having presented letters dimissory to the bishop, should apply to be set apart to some vacant curacy ; suppose, too, that the bishop and some of the presbyters should actually lay their hands upon his head, and offer up a prayer, would not the people present be strongly impressed with the idea, that they had witnessed a case of ordi- nation? And in the instance mentioned in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts, can you show that any of the forms usually observed in ordination was omitted ? Can you point out a more circumstantial description of an or- dination in any part of the New Testament ? You seem to think, that if ordination had been contemplated, the church would have " assembled specially, designedly, regularly, with the intention of proceeding in the mat- ter." And, can you give any proof that it did not do so ? It is said : " As they minis- tered 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 on them, they sent them away." * It is clear, from the sacred narrative, that some time may have elapsed between the intimation of the Holy Ghost and the act of ordination. The people of Antioch may, meanwhile, have had ample notice of the approaching ceremony. You allege that Paul and Barnabas, on this occa- sion, were set apart by the ministers of Antioch " for a temporary mission, which mission, in a short space of time, they accomplished." I can inform you that, according to our most learned commentators, they were employed about three years in their first to ur. f Many a devoted missionary has been cut down within three years from the date of his ordination, and many a zealous minister, after having spent three years in heathen lands, has returned home to labour amongst his own countrymen. Many an individual is ordained to a curacy, in which he does not design to spend the one half of that period. Besides, it does not ap- pear that the service to which Paul and Bar- nabas were called, terminated with their first expedition. They are said, indeed, J on their * Acts xiii, 2, 3. + See Acts xiv, 3. t Acts xiv, 26. return to Antioch, to have "fulfilled their work" but by this expression the evangelist plainly designs only to intimate, that thus far they had fully discharged Us duties. * They were set apart as itinerant missionaries, to plant and organize churches, and this vocation could only be bounded by the limits of their earthly existence. It is obvious that such was the impression upon the minds of these brethren. Hence we read afterwards, f that " Paul said unto Barnabas, let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord ; and see how they do." About_/*oHr years elapsed before Paul returned to Antioch from this second expedition ; + after he had spent some time there § he set out upon a third tour. He was originally sent forth from Antioch by the Holy Ghost, || and he was directed in all his movements by the guidance of the Spirit, f You urge that according to the most labo- rious chronologists, Paul exercised the apos- tolic functions for wine years before this occur- rence at Antioch. I am quite aware that he had previously been engaged in the work of the ministry, and I have adverted to the fact in ' Presbyterianism Defended,' (p. 66,) but I am inclined to think, that you make an over- statement when you say that he was nine years in active service. According to eminent au- thorities, he spent a considerable part of this period in retirement and in study.** Still it is beyond doubt, that for several years prior to his ordination, he hadbeen employed in preach- ing the gospel. I may here observe, however, that an individual may be divinely authorised to declare the message of the Lord, who has otherwise no ecclesiastical standing. Such was frequently the case with the prophets of the Old Testament. David was of the tribe of Judah, and yet, under the sanction of inspira- tion, he composed psalms for the edification of the church, and made various alterations in the forms of the Jewish worship. Solomon his son kneeled at the altar of the Lord, in pre- sence of the priests and the people, and offered up a solemn prayer at the dedication of the temple. Many other prophets, who were not * In proof of this, see the meaning of the original word in Colossians i, 25 ; anil Kornansxv, 19. + Acts xv, 36. t Acts xviii, 22. 8 Acts xviii, 23. It Acts xiii,4. f Acts xvi, 6, 7, 10. **" In Arabia," says Macknight, "Saul continued more than tuo years ; and during all that time employ- ed himself in studying the Jewish Scriptures more care- fully than ever, by the help of the new lights which had been bestowed on him, and in searching into the true nature of the law of Moses, and in attending to such revelations as Christ was pleased to make to him. And having, by these revelations, acquired a complete knowledge of all Christ's doctrines, .sayings, miracles, sufferings, resurrection, and ascension, and of the de- sign both of the law and of the gospel, and of the con- firmation which the gospel derives from the writings of Moses and the prophets, he returned to Damascus a well instructed apostle of Christ, and there entered on the stated execution of his apostolical office." — Life of the apostle Paul, appended to Macknight on the Apos- tolical Epistles. TIMOTHY AND TITUS NOT PRELATES. 21 of the tribe of Levi, were empowered to preach to the Israelites. It would seem that Paul was placed in similar circumstances. He was " an apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Je- sus Christ, and God the Father, u ho raised him from the dead,"* and in this character he was warranted to preach without any ecclesiastical recognition. Hut until lie was set apart at Antioch, wc do not find that lie performed those functions which are understood to belong pe- culiarly to regularly ordained ministers. We have no evidence that he baptized, or adminis- tered the Lord's supper, or assisted in the or- dination of others. After this event, however, we are told that he engaged frequently in such services. He had never before been formally dedicated to the office of the ministry, and he was now set apart by the laying on of hands, that due respect might be paid to the rite of ordination. Upon this principle alone can we give a fair and satisfactory explanation of the transaction. I may add, that we are here bound to acknowledge the wonderful wisdom of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as he has furnished a narrative of the apostle's ordination, so full and so explicit, as may enable the church, in all ages, to recognise the true nature of the cere- mony, and to see the folly of such high-flown pretensions as have been frequently advanced by Papists and Prelatists. An apostle was here ordained by the humble presbyters of Antioch. I consider it scarcely necessary to reply to that portion of your letter which immediately succeeds your observations upon the ordination at Antioch. It consists merely of empty de- clamation and proofless assertions. You again come forward with your argument from the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The remarks of the Episcopalian, Dr. Whitby, upon this point, deserve your consideration. " The great controversy," saith he, " concerning this, (the Epistle to Titus) and the Epistle to Timothy, is, whether Timothy and Titus were indeed made bishops, the one of Ephesus and the Proconsular Asia, the other of Crete, having authority to make, and jurisdiction over, so many bishops as were in those precincts. Now, of this matter, / confess I can find nothing in any writer of the first three centuries, nor any intimation that they bore that name." When we recollect that, in the early ages, writings were scarce, that printing was unknown, that few were acquainted with the art of penman- ship, and that books were comparatively rare, arc we to attach the slightest weight to the authority of later historians, who testify for the first time to matters bearing date three or four hundred years before they composed their narratives ? You lay it down as an " uncon- trovertible dogma," that the 1st Epistle to Timothy was written in the year 65. I have only to say that if you can establish this point you can prove impossibilities; for it follows, according to your system of chronology, that Paul was at E/ihesus about scrcn years aft/t- he left it for the last time! When this 1st * Galatians i, 1. Epistle was dictated, the Apostle contempla- ted an early visit to Ephesus,* but he addres- sed the letter to the young and inexperienced evangelist, that he might know how to deport himself in the interval. f Your prime argu- ment in behalf of prelacy rests upon the sup- posed fact that Timothy was bishop of Ephesus when the 1st Epistle was addressed to him, and yet the New Testament supplies evidence that neither then, nor at a subsequent period, had the evangelist any stated ecclesiastical connexion with the Ephesian church. When Paul afterwards took a final farewell of the elders of Ephesus, j we do not find that Timo- thy was a member of presby tery. The Apostle distinguishes all the elders by the title of bishops,^ and in that last address he takes no notice of their young archbishop. Strange, indeed, that on such an occasion he should overlook the highest functionary, who was be- sides his own son in the faith, his friend, and his fellow-traveller ! It does not appear that Timothy was at Ephesus, much less that he had any stated residence there, when the 2nd Epistle was addressed to him.|| I here merely glance at these topics, inasmuch as they will be more fully investigated in a subsequent letter, ^f Let me remind you that your chief argument from the 1st Epistle to Timothy has been overturned.** Paul said to Timothy — " Lay hands suddenly on no man."ff You infer from this that Timothy alone had power to ordain. But Paul said again — " Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doc- trine. "JJ It must follow, therefore, according to your logic, that no other minister at Ephe- sus had a right to give attendance to reading, to exhortation, or to doctrine. Your reasoning destroys itself. Its weakness has already been exposed in ' Presbyterianism Defended ;' but in your letter you completely evade my objec- tions, and come forward once more with your refuted propositions. I do not require to " slay * 1 Timothy, iii, 14, and iv, 13. + 1 Timothy, iii, 15, and iv, 12. Had you looked into the works of Hammond, yon might have paused before pronouncing so positive a judgment respecting the date o( the Epistle. Hammond says — " Supposing then that this of Acts xx, I, was the point of time to which St. Paul refers, when he speaks of his being left to reside at Ephesus, and supposing again that he could not write to him at any part of the time when be was with him, and yet the nhole contixture of the L'pistle rendering it probable that it was written, by way of directions, soon after his leaving him theie, and that whilst it was yet uncertain to S. Paul whether he should come to Ephe- sus ag;'in, c. 3, 14, 15, (which also may be the reason that there are no salutations in the close, because of bis coming newly from thence, and his thoughts to be there again speedily,) it will be from these premises reasonable to conclude, that either it was written on the way as be went from Ephesus towards Macedonia, Acts xx, I, at Troas, perhaps, where he stayed a while, or at bis com- ing to Macedonia, or in Epirus or in Greece ; but the former of them, as nearest to his coming from Ephesus, is the most probablr." — Preface 10 Annotations on the 1st Epistle to Timothy. t Acts xx, 25, 38. i Acts x\. sa II 2 Timothy, iv, 9, 12, 21. IT Letter II. ** See Presbyterianism Defended, pp. 35, 30. •»+ 1 Timothy, v, 22. U 1 Timothy, iv, 13. ANCIENT TESTIMONIES CONSIDERED. the slain," and I shall therefore pass on to the next shadow of an argument which I may happen to encounter. Alter leaving " the field of Scripture," — a movement which has my unqualified approval, for I am grieved to see you playing your fantas- tic tricks upon the hallowed territory, you " proceed to a slight excursion over that of Christian antiquity." Like your friend the pseudo-Ignatius, you salute anumber of bishops and churches hi your progress. " In Antioch," you say, " Euodias was ordained bishop by Paul ; and upon his death, Ignatius ordained to the same bishopric by Peter. St. John constituted Polycarp bishop of Smyrna; Timo- thy owed, as we have seen, his ordination to the great apostle of the Gentiles; and to him in Ephesus, and to Titus in Crete, was com- mitted by an Apostle the privilege of ordaining elders."* Were the Apostle Paul now alive, I am inclined to think he would class these statements under his emphatic designation of " old wives' fables." You cannot prove that Euodias was the first bishop of Antioch, or the predecessor of Ignatius. The testimony of Eusebiusis self-contradictory. In oneplacef lie says that Euodias was the first bishop of Antioch, and that Ignatius was the second, again! ^ e affirms that Ignatius was the succes ■ sor of Peter at Antioch. In the 1st verse of the 13th chapter of the Acts, the evangelist Luke speaks of other pastors who were at Antioch long before, and I am disposed to dis- miss Eusebius as a self-convicted witness, and to adhere to the decision of the inspired testi- mony. You would fondly believe that Timo- thy was the first bishop of Ephesus, but we know from undoubted authority^ that there was originally a plurality of bishops in that celebrated city. Your affirmation that Titus was the first bishop of Crete is alike untenable. Had your search into antiquity been as exten- sive as you would have us to imagine, you might have ascertained that, in the age imme- diately succeeding that of the apostles, there was no such personage as the bishop of that whole island. We have reference at an early period to no less than eleven bishops who nourished there simultaneously. We read, for example, of Philip, bishop of Gortyna, and of Pinytus, bishop of Gnossus, — Gortyna and Gnossus being both towns in Crete. I presume that those sees were scarcely as extensive as my own bishopric of Raphoe. If any one at the time to which your reference applies had made allusion to the bishop of Crete, he would have mentioned a dignitary unknown to any of the brethren, and the announcement of the title would have startled the Christian public as effectually, as would the discovery at the present day of a new prelate in our own island, distinguished by the imposing designation of the bishop of Ulster. You have brought forward a variety of testi- * Letters, p. 148. + Hook iii chap. 22. . Book iii, chap. 36. J Acts xx, 28. monies to shew, what did not require proof, that bishops were formerly entrusted with the power of ordination. But it is clear from the declaration of one of your own witnesses, that, long after the times of the apostles, the bishops could not exercise this power independently of the presbyters. You refer to a council of Car- thage, held, as it is supposed, A.n. 398, and, according to its provisions, the presbyters as well as the bishop were required to impose hands in ordination. The third canon is as follows : " When a presbyter is ordained, as the bishop is blessing him and holding his hand upon his head, let all the presbyters also who are present, hold their hands upon his head near to the hand of the bishop."* I here pre- sent you with a true version of the canon, because as given in your letter it is, in carious respects, sadly mutilated. I attach consider- able importance to such of your acts of coun- cils as prove that presbyters alone were at length forbidden to exercise the right of ordi- nation. You are to observe that not one of those canons is more ancient than the fourth century.f It is well known that then, in con- sequence of the establishment of Christianity by Constantine, a great change passed upon the constitution of the church. The city bishops were suddenly raised to a degree of dignity unknown before, and gradually obtained exclusive possession of a variety of privileges which they had formerly enjoyed in common with the presbyters. J The documents which * Presbyter quum ordinatur, Episcopo enm benedi- cente, et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui prcesentessuut, mnnus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant. — I'inii Concilia, vol. i, p. 553. May I ask you, how, in translating this ca- non from the "original," you happened to omit the very emphatic word all ? See Letters, p. 148. 1 may re- mark that presbyters, in the ordination of a presbyter, occupy the same relative position as bishops in the ordi- nation of a bishop. In the 2d Canon of this Council of Carthage, the following instructions are given respect- ing the ordination of a bishop. — " When a bishop is or- dained, let two bishops place and hold a copy of the gos- pels upon his head and neck, and whilst one is bestowiny the blessing upon him, let all the rest of the bishops who are present, touch his head with their hands." + I may not perhaps apprehend your meaning wbeu you speak (Note, p. 148,) of the authenticity of the apo- stolic canons. You do not surely design to say, that they truly set forth the ecclesiastic il arrangements of the apostolicage. Many of them must have beendrawn up when the church was far advanced in a course of defection. Archbishop Wake says of them—" Much less is it probable that the canons yet extant under their name were truly compiled by them (the apostles,) but rather, as our late pious and learned bishop Beveridge has shewn, were a collection of the canons made by the councils of the first age?, put together at several times, and finished, as we now see them, within three hundred years alter Christ, before the assembling of the first general council of Nice. This is the earliest date that is at present ascribed to them by the most judicious writers of the Roman communion, as well as of the Re- formed religion ; and some there are who will by no means allow them to be so ancient as even this opinion supposes them to be." (Preliminary Discourse to his Apostolical Fathers.) Daille contends that they were not collected until about the end of the fifth century. t Speaking of this century, Mosheim says: " Even the bishops themselves, whose opulence and authority were considerably increased since the reign of Constan- tine, began to introduce, gradually, innovations into the forms of ecclesiastical discipline, and to change the an- cient government of the church. Their first step was an THE CASES OP AERIUS AND ISCHYRAS EXAMINED. •23 you have quoted afford evidence that in the fourth century and afterwards many were still disposed to assert their rights, and that large ecclesiastical assemblies required to interpose that the presbyters might be overborne, and reduced to submission. In the fourth cen- tury country bishops were also forbidden to ordain.* But Binghamf and other writers of your church, contend that these dignitaries were bishops in your own sense of the word. Your argument would therefore prove that bishops themselves had not the power of ordi- nation. The testimonies which may be brought forward, in fact completely destroy your cause, for they show that presbyters and country bishops had previously been in the habit of or- daining, and that it was found exceedingly dif- ficult to induce them to part with the; preroga- tive. In your account of Aerius you unquestion- ably present a choice specimen of the hyper- bolic style of writing. You say: " In the fourth century, Aerius, a presbyter, promulgated the doctrine of the equality of bishops and pres- byters. How did the church receive this? By classing the innovation among the heresies of the iu/e." Indeed! Is it not singular, then, that the most distinguished writers of the church, such as Augustine and Jerome, supported the views of Aerius?| They maintained the ori- entire exclusion of the people from all part in the ad- ministration of ecclesiastical affairs ; and afterwards they, by degrees, divested even the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive authority, that they might have no importunate protestors to control their ambition, or oppose their proceedings, and principally, that they misht either engross to themselves, or distri- bute as they thought proper, the possessions and reve- nues of the church. Hence it came to pass, that, at the conclusion of this century, there remained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the church. Many of the privileges which hud formerly belonged to the presbyters and peojde were usurped by the bi- shops ; and many of the rights which had been lormerly vested in the universal church, were transferred to the emperors and to subordinate officers and magistrates." (Etc. Hist. cent, iv, part ii, chap, ii.) * See the 13lh canon of the Council of Ancyra. + Origines Ecclesiastical, Bonk ii,chap. xiv, Sect. 4. } Bishop StillingfiVet says— "Jerome therefore was not ranked witli Aerius, because though he held the same opinion as to bishops and presbyters, yet he was far from the consequence of Aerius, that therefore all bishops were to be separated from." — Irenicum, Part ii,chap.vi. In a tract, De Htrrsibus, attributed to Augustine, Aerius is classed among the heretics ; but there is good reason to believe that this tract was not written by the bishop of Hippo. It makes the statement respecting Aerius upon the authority of Epiphanius. Augustineadmitted that the distinction between bishop and presbyter was not of Divine institution, but established by the custom of the church. Thushesays: " Although according to the names of honour which the use of the church has now established, the episcopate may be greater than the presbytery, nevertheless, in many things Augustine is inferior to Jerome" (Epis. 19, ad Hieronymum.) The opiniun of Jerome is well known. Hilary (sometimes called Ambrose,) a writer of the fourth century, and one of the very best of the ancient commentators, expresses himself in a manner equally decided. He alleges that he was originally the bishop who, by virtue of his seni- ority, was at the head of the presbytery. He s;iys fur- ther: th'it this arrangement was changed by tit ■ direction ofn council. " Immutata est ratio, prospiciente concilia ; ut nun ordo, sed meritum crearet episcopnm, multnrum sacerdotumjudieioconstitutum, ncindignu.s teuiere usur- paret et esset mullis scatidalum." (Comment Eph. iv.) The same writer, in his exposition of 1 Tim., ili, thus ginal identity of bishop and presbyter; and yet we do not find that they were classed with the heretics of the age. I am therefore left to infer, that, in your estimation, Epiphanius is the most fitting representative of the church. You say that the doctrine of Aerius roused his indignation , that he " denounced the modern Corah as ignorant of his Bible, and demanded, in the tone of one who relied upon an estab- lished and fixed principle — how should a pres- byter constitute teachers, when he has not the power to impose hands in ordination ?" * In a subsequent letter,f you shall receive a more particular account of your friend Epiphanius. I may observe, meanwhile, that the charge of ignorance from such a man might sit very lightly on Aerius. It has been said that Ae- rius was an Arian in principle ; but the accu- sation appears to be unfounded ; for it is ad- mitted by Epiphanius himself that he separated from an Arian bishop. I am inclined to think that he was an honest reformer of the fourth century. He was denounced by Epiphanius, not only for his Presbyterianism, but also be- cause he rejected Lents, as well as prayers and sacrifice for the dead. May we not infer from these facts, that he knew his Bible much bet- ter than his accuser ? His authority must in- deed be very worthless, if it be not at least as repectable as that of Epiphanius. You altogether misunderstand the bearing of the question respecting the ordination of Ischy- ras. Your statement is as follows : " The case (the right of presbyters to ordain,) was again ruled in the instance of Colluthus, apres- byter of Alexandria, who assumed the power of ordaining, and admitted, as he thought, Ischiras to the ministry. Here the point, was raised, and what were the decisions of the church ? The offender was summoned before the Synod of Alexandria, at which Hosius and other bishops were present, and himself was reprimanded, and his act declared utterly null and invalid. I establish this by a quotation from the Synodieal epistle of the bishops of Egypt and Lybia; ' Ischiras was neither or- dained by the church, nor reckoned among the presbyters whom Miletius (the bishop) or- dained.' How, then, came Ischiras to be a presbyter, and by whom was he ordained ? Was it by Colluthus ? But Colluthus died a presbyter; so that all the impositions of his hands were null and invalid; and all those whom he ordained in his schism have been re- duced to the laity."! I must inform you that your quotation from this Synodieal epistle is exceedingly incorrect. Your version says, that [schyras was not "ordained by the church ;" whereas the original states that he was not speaks: " Denique Tiraotheum presbyterum ordinatum significat, sed quia ante se alteram MM habebat, episco- pus erat." According to Hilary, the bishop and the presbyter were originally of the same order, and had the same ordination. They were distinguished by the mere accident of age or priority of ordination. » Letters, p. 150. + Letter II. t Letters, p. 150. 24 PRESBYTERTAL ORDINATION. " elected by the church."* According to you, the epistle declares that " Colluthus died a presbyter; so that, all the impositions of his hands were null and invalid ;" whereas the ori- ginal simply avers that "Colluthus died a pres- byter, and all his ordinations were rescinded," or were made invalid ; evidently alluding to the act of the Synod of Alexandria. f You may perceive that there were two grand ohjections to the ordination of Ischyras. In the first place, he was not elected by the church. We have seen that, upon the same principle, some very unpleasant questions might he proposed touching your own ministerial commission. In the second place, he was ordained by a schis- matical presbyter. We learn that Colluthus had lapsed into heresy— that he aimed to set up a distinct sect — and that he ordained min- isters by his sole authority. According to a usage then established, he ought to have ob- tained the permission of the bishop of Alexan- dria, before he proceeded to ordain. He was therefore denounced as a transgressor, because he acted withoutlicense. That this was the real nature of his offence, is apparent even from your own account of the history of Colluthus. Did the Synod of Alexandria degrade him from his rank as a presbyter, because he had the unheard-of presumption to exercise the prero- gative of ordination ? No such thing. They merely reprimanded him because he had or- dained in an irregular manner. His ordina- tions were of course annulled, as otherwise a door would have been opened for the introduc- tion of endless confusion. But, be it observed, that only such ordinations as he had made in his schism were abrogated. The language of the epistle clearly implies that the decision of the Synod did not affect those whom he ad- mitted to the ministry either before or after- wards. There are some important facts men- tioned incidentally by Du Pin, which confirm this explanation of the transaction : " Ischy- ras," saith he, " had dwelt at Mareotis, a coun- try of Egypt, where there was neither bishop nor suffragan, but only a great many parishes governed bypriests."\ We may conclude, then, that presbyterian ordination was common in that country. We shall afterwards show that it was long practised in Egypt, and that for several centuries even the bishops of Alexan- dria were ordained by merepresbyters.§ I do not feel myself called on to accompany you in your tour through a number of our 'Ttc t-« isxAqfiK; %uos of his time."^ Co- lumba was but a presbyter, and you may thus see the humble origin of your boasted episco- pacy. And now, sir, will you press me with the challenge ; " What sea gave you forth, from what heaven did you fall ?" § It appears that Presbytery is the mother of us all, and you ought not to malign her. I am, indeed, one of her own sons, and I trust my honoured parent will never have reason to disown me, but as you are only a kind of step-child, v ou stand in a very delicate position, and you should therefore deport yourself with remark- able modesty. * I shall give the original, which is certainly a piece of most barbarous Latinity: " Quinto intcrdictum est : ut nullus permittatur de genete Scottorum in alicujus Diocesi sibi ministeiium usurpare, Deque ei consentire liceat ex sacro ordine aliquod attingere, vel ah eis acci- pere in haptismo, aut in celebratione missaruni, vel etiam eucharistiam populo prsebere, quia incertnm est nobis, nnde, et an ab aliquo ordinentnr. Scimus quo- modo in canonibus precipitin - ut nullus episcoporum [vel) prcsbyterorum invadere temptaverit alius paro- cbiam, nisi cum consentu proprii episcopi. lanto magis respueiidum est ab alienis nationibus sacra niinisteiia percipere, cum quibus nullus oido Mttiopolitani$,ntc honor aliis habeatur." — Spelm. Concil. torn, i, p. 329. Aliis evidently refers to ordinibus understood, {Dal is, they had nn respect (or other orders. They did not ad- mit that bishops alone could ordaiu, for they had ordi- nation by pre.sbyters. + See Appendix, B. * Scotichron. Book vi, c. 40. i Letters, p. 1J2. Hisc and Progress of Prelacy. I have, I think, demonstrated to the satis- faction of every candid mind, that prelatic or- dination is utterly destittite of any scriptural warrant. It is easy to show that, so far as the first three centuries are concerned, it can de- rive as little countenance from the usages of the early church. In fact, all that is even plausible in the argument of its abettors, rests upon a mere mistake created by the sound of a word. It is taken for granted, that a bishop means a diocesan. Prelatists find it rather difficult to prove that, even in the third century, any thing like a modern diocesan existed ; and certainly, from the records of the first two centuries, they have never yet been able to produce one genuine and undoubted specimen of such a piece of antiquity. In the second century every congregation had its own bishop, its elders, and its deacons. It is supposed, that the "writings called the Apostolic Constitutions, were forged about the third or fourth century, and that even afterwards they were altered and enlarged. You cannot, however, object to their evidence, as you have yourself appealed to them; and yet it is plain, that when some of them, at least, were written, the bishop or pastor, elders, deacons, and people, regularly assembled in the same place. " Let the seat of the bishop," say they, " be placed in the midst, and let the presbyters sit on each side of him, and let the deacons stand by them, . . . . and let it be their care that the people sit with all quietness and order, in the other part of the church."* It is beyond all controversy that, for the first three centuries, parochial ministers exercised the power of or- dination. Thus we are told of Novatian, the rival of Cornelius of Rome, that he was ordain ed " by three bishops, who were very simple countrymen,"f who came from " a small and very insignificant district of Italy."* Here a can- didate for what was then the greatest bishopric in Christendom was ordained by three obscure country pastors, and had it not been that No- vatian had otherwise no title to the situation, the act of these functionaries would have been universally acknowledged as valid. I shall now proceed, for your farther satisfaction, to illustrate the origin of your form of ecclesias- tical polity. It is apparent from Scripture that all pas tors were originally bound by the same obli- gations to " take care of the Church of God." § In the New Testament, which is our divine statute book, we search in vain for any thing like a recognition of diocesan episcopacy. The Apostles were commanded by our Saviour to organise the church, and yet the book of the Acts, embracing the history of a period of * Lib. 2. Cap. 57. 'uTXeviTTecTovs. The words literally signify, " three hi. shops, men rustic and very simple." According toDnl'in, the letter in w hicli this Statement is contained, was in all probability written originally in Greek. Hist, of Third Cent Cornelias. t Euseb. Book vi. c. 43. $ 1 Tim. iii. 5. 28 RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. about thirty years, does not speak of the con- secration or of the existence even of a single prelate. The most learned episcopalians have admitted that at first there were no located diocesans, but they contend that the Apostles in their own times acted as the bishops of the churches.* We might suppose from this that episcopacy must have been originally estab- lished upon a very extensive scale, for the gospel spread to the utmost bounds of the Ro- man Empire in the apostolic age, and yet, ac- cording to this view, only twelve dignitaries were required to exercise the prelatical au- thority over its many-peopled provinces. It must be admitted, too, that they present a strange specimen of episcopal superintendence. They did not hold an annual, or even a tri- ennial visitation of their clergy ; when they made a tour among the churches they were far more occupied with the • people than the pas- tors ; and they appear never to have inspected some portions of their charge. They declare that Christ sent them, not to rule over the elders, but to "preach the gospel" — we read of some of them remaining two or three years in the same neighbourhood, and spending eighteen months or upwards in the establish- ment of a single congregation. f When an apostle visits a church for the last time J he makes no mention of a. successor, he gives no directions for the filling up of his place ; he does not even throw out a hint that a vacancy would be created by his demise. It is clear that the apostles, as distinguished from the preachers they ordained, were not intended to represent any special order of spiritual office- bearers, for though, as the inspired servants of the Saviour and the authorised founders of his church, they were entitled to the utmost de- ference, yet otherwise they were constantly occupied in discharging the duties of ordinary missionaries. If we maintain that the apostles in the pri- mitive age acted as the sole bishops of the churches, w T e will find it somewhat difficult to account for the extraordinary change which the aspect of Christendom presented, shortly after they had finished their career. In the middle of the second century, we do not see the territories occupied by the heralds of the cross divided into twelve sections, and a mighty prelate presiding over each, for we cannot name a single individual who had the care even of two parishes,^ and every congregation belong- ing to the poorest village had a bishop of its own. Justin Martyr, who wrote about a.d. * The following curious sentiment is broached by Hooker. According (o this writer, Timothy and Titus " having by commission episcopal authority, were to exercise the same in ordaining, not bishops, the apos- tles themselves yet living and retaining that power in their own hands, but presbyters, such as the apostles at the first did create throughout all churches. Bishops by restraint, only Jamesat Jerusalem excepted, were not yd in being. — Eccles Pol. Book vii. In the opinion of Hooker, the apostles must have regarded the episco- pal power as exceedingly liable to abuse, when they were unwilling to intrust the full exercise of it even to Timothy and Titus. + Acts xviii, II, and xx, 31. i Acts xx, 25. i See Appendix C. 150, thus describes the duties of the bishops of his time : " On the day," says he, " winch is called Sunday, all who live in towns or in the country, assemble in one place, and the me- morials of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as maybe expedient. Then, when the reading ceases,* the president in an address gives them an advice, and ur- ges them to the imitation of these good things. After that we all rise with one consent and offer" up prayer; and, as I have before related, when prayer is over, bread and wine and wa- ter are produced, and the president in like manner offers up prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability,and the people approve, repeating the amen, and distribution is made, and each shares of what has been blessed, and it is sent to those not present, by the deacons. Those who are in better circumstances, and who are so inclined, each according to his will contributes what he pleases, and what is col- lected is deposited with the president, and he assists orphans and widows, and those who are in want through disease or other cause, and those who are in bonds, and strangers who are on their journey, and simply, he is a care- taker of all who are in want." f According to Justin, every assembly of Christians, whether in town or country, had its president or bishop. Can prelatists explain, upon their own prin- ciples, how it was that in so short a time, epis- copacy had so narrowed its platform ? If, as they allege, a bishop's charge in the Jirst cen- tury was so extensive, how did it happen in the second to be so small ? The simple fact that in the second century a bishopric and a congre- gation were commensurate, is sufficient to over- throw the supposition that the apostles acted as the diocesans of the primitive churches. Prelacy must be satisfied with a somewhat later original. It is plain from the New Testament that there was at first a plurality of elders in every congregation.;}; The duty of preaching per- haps generally devolved on one or two : it is evident that there were some who did not la- bour in the word and doctrine,§ but in an age when spiritual gifts were bestowed so richly on the church, it is highly probable that most of the elders were wont, at least occasionally, to address public instruction to the people. || It * It is probable that, at this period, one of the elders acted as reader. About the close of this century, a new order ot ecclesiastics, called lectors or readers, was in- troduced in some places ; but notwithstanding, Sozo- men, writing in the (ifth century, says that in many churches priests alone read the Gospel. Sozom. Lib. vii. c. xix. + Apologia ii. Opera. p.'.>8-99. Ed: Paris, 1636. Justin sometimes calls the bishop president of the bre- thren, and by the brethren he apparently means the elders, so that according to this very early lather, every congregation in his time consisted of the president, the brethren, the deacons, and the people. I Acts xiv, 23, and James v, 14. $ I Tim. v. 17. II It is evident from Scripture that all the members of the same eldership or session, had originally the same ordination (Acts xiv, 23,) but it is probable that they soon agreed upon a division of labour, and distributed amongst themselves the duties of overseers of the church. Whilst some attended chiefly to the maintenance of discipline, others taught the catechumens, or visited RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. 29 is certain that several churches, such as those of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Corinth, enjoyed a variety of teachers. * In the appointment of a number of elders to rule over every con- gregation, we have an instance of divine wis- dom, for as by this arrangement a spirit of des- potism is checked, so also in the multitude of counsellors there is safety, and a body of pious and judicious men can exert a far more ex- tensive and salutary influence than a single individual. It is, however, pretty generally admitted, that in the second century the gift of miracles, so common in the age preceding, was, to a great extent, withdrawn ; and there is every reason to believe that all spiritual gifts began to be more rare. When, therefore, the elders ordained by the apostles and evange- lists had passed away, it generally happened that every congregation felt it necessary to be satisfied with a single preacher. This indivi- dual, who was at first called the president, and afterwards the bishop, obtained of course at once a degree of superiority over the rest of the elders.f In the second century the presi- dent or bishop was the teacher of the flock, and this parish minister was generally acknowledged as the highest ecclesiastical functionary. Ire- naeus, the pastor of Lyons, flourished about a.d. 180, and he expressly asserts this prin- ciple. " As," saith he, " the sun, the creature of God, is one and the same throughout the world, so also the preaching of the truth shines every where, and enlightens all men who wish to come to the knowledge of the truth : and of those who preside over the churches, for there is no one above the teachek,+ neither he who is very powerful in speech can speak other- wise than thus, neither can he who is weak in speech lessen what has been handed down."§ It is admitted by all well-informed episcopa- lians that the early bishops statedly preached to the congregation. "It is manifest," says Potter, archbishop of Canterbury, " that preach- ing was reckoned to be chiefly the bishop's office." '|| " Optatus,Bishop of Milevis, expressly affirms that none but bishops used to preach." i\ " Public teaching and the administration of the sacraments," says the episcopalian Pal- mer, " were always reserved to the bishop in the sick, or cave themselves to the public preaching of the Word. Al! had the same authority, but all did not possess the same gifts. * Acts xiii, I, aud 1 Cor. xiv, 29. + According to the view here taken, the statement of Hilary appears extremely probable. He intimates that the bishop succeeded to his office at first by senio- rity, and afterwards by tiection. In the day» of the apostles there does not appear to have been any fixed president or moderator of the eldership, but soon after- wards the office became permanent. The elders who lived upon the borders of the apostolic age were more richly endowed with spiritual gifts than those of a later period, and as they generally possessed the necessary quah ligations, we may presume that, with the approba- tion ot the whole church, they succeeded to the presi- dency in the order of seniority. Afterwards, as gifts be- came more rare, and as the office itself became more important, different candidates were proposed, and the election was often keenly contested. + 'Oudus yu£ 'vrt£ rii "hihuiTKa,\ov. i Adversus Haereses. Book i. ch. iii. Ed. Ox. 1702 pp. 4b— 47. II Discourse of Church Government, chap. v. If Discourse, chap. v. the primitive church, except i n cases of necessity. In the Greek church, this was carried so far that Balsamon says, the Scriptures were never explained to the people when the see of Con- stantinople was vacant."* A christian bi- shopric in the second century was indeed very much the same as a presbyterian parish at the present day. Then, every Christian assembly had its bishop, elders, and deacons ; as every presbyterian congregation has now its' bishop, session and committee. When I say that, after the demise of the elders ordained in the apostolic age, there was only a single preacher in every congrega- gation, an exception should perhaps be made in favour of a few large towns. In cities such as Rome and Alexandria, the Christians mul- tiplied rapidly, and it is probable, that from the very first century, a number of preachers were there employed. For a time these preach- ers continued, as in the apostolic age, to rule the church in common, but at an early period one of their body was appointed as their con- stant moderator. It deserves however to be noted, that long after this fixed president was chosen, the rest of the elders continued to be called his brethren, his colleagues, and his fel- low-presbyters.f The president seems gene- rally to have been most distinguished by his gifts, for whilst the others assisted him in the work of the ministry, he acted as the principal preacher. On special occasions, such as for the purpose of partaking of the Lord's Supper, the Christians, even in the chief cities, for a con- siderable time after the apostolic age, appear to have met together in one assembly ; but as the congregations increased and became un- wieldy, chapels of ease were erected for the public accommodation. Some of the preach- ers who had hitherto assisted the presiding minister in the parent church, were deputed to officiate in these places. We thus see the germ of diocesan episcopacy. It was intro- duced silently, and without exciting any sus- picion. When a congregation was at first planted, its members were commonly few and far between ,• but as the disciples increased, the presiding minister availed himself of the aid of his assistant preachers ; and, by adding to their number from time to time, he continued to maintain his jurisdiction within all the ter- ritory over which his charge originally extend- ed. When the apostles established a congre- gation, they supplied it with a full staff of ec- clesiastical office-bearers ; and when a second place of worship was erected in a city, it should have been furnished with its own pastor, elders, and deacons. But it would seem that the pre- siding minister would have viewed such an arrangement with jealousy, as derogating from his dignity, and interfering with his preroga- tives. Besides, as he received a certain por- tion of the contributions of the church, his in- * The Apostolical Jurisdiction and Succession of the Episcopacy in the British Chinches, vindicated, by the Uev. William Palmer, M.A., of Worcester College, Ox- ford. London, 1M0. Page. 34, Note. + In proof of this see the Epistles of Cyprian passim and the 3Stb canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage. 30 EXTENT OF THE BISHOPRICS OF CARTHAGE AND ROME. come varied according to the numbers and wealth of his parishioners, and his temporal interests would have been greatly affected by the establishment of a separate and indepen- dent congregation. According to the canons of the church, no new bishopric could be erect- ed without the consent of the bishop oftheplace,* and under such circumstances, it was to be expected that new bishoprics would be very rarely formed. It is rather singular that the grand argument advanced in behalf of the pre- tensions of the early city bishops is identical with that which the papists have since urged so strenuously. The mode of reasoning adopt- ed by modern prelatists was then unknown ; but it was alleged that Peter was the prince of the apostles, and that therefore there should be a chief pastor in every presbytery. It is not my present business to examine the vali- dity of this argument, it is enough to observe that it is put forward in the third century, espe- cially by Cyprian, f The presiding pastors began, also, at an early period, to propagate the doctrine, that, in order to preserve the vi- sible unit// of the church, there should be only one bishop in a city. This principle, which is frequently inculcated in the works of Cyprian, is sanctioned in the eighth canon of the council of Nice. Amongst other evil consequences, it led to the absurdity, that, whilst almost every village in Italy containing only a small con- gregation had one bishop, the chief city of the empire containing many thousands of chris- tians had no more. When there were only a hunched disciples in a place it had at least one bishop, when the number amounted to a mil- lion, the one bishop still remained. Were we to judge, sir, from your confident assertions, we might suppose that diocesan episcopacy existed in the days of the apostles in its full-grown dimensions. It can, however, be clearly shown that, even in the middle of the third century, it had made very little pro- gress. About that period, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Carthage were perhaps the most important bishoprics in Christendom. But the bishopric of Carthage was limited to a single congregation ;+ and though it probably contained from six to eight thousand souls, it was by no means so large as are at present some of the overgrown parishes of Scotland. A modern diocesan, who had not a few hun- dred preachers under him,would be considered as rather a sorry dignitary ;§ and yet it is ad- mitted by the most zealous supporters of pre- lacy, that Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, could boast of * Seethe fifth canon of the 2d Council of Carthage, and the 42d canon of the 3d Council of Carthage. + See Cyprian De Unitate Ecclesiae. t This point is very clearly proved by Sir Peter King, in his [inquiry, p. 47—53. i In Fngland and Wales there are two archbishops, 24 or 25 bishops, and about 17,000 clergy of a lower grade. Thus, on an average, every prelate has up- wards of GOO clergy under him. In Ireland the inferior clergy are not so rfumerous in proportion to the pre. lates. only eight presbyters,* and that some of them did not jirrtuh.f He has but slender claims to the character of a diocesan bishop, though your party are extremely anxious to provide him with a post in the hierarchy. Some have accordingly called him an archbishop. Car- thage was the chief city of that part of Africa, and its principal pastor was generally respec- ted as the most influential minister of the district. He was therefore wont to call toge- ther assemblies of the neighbouring clergy, and in such meethigs he was permitted to preside ; but in one of these conventions Cyprian himself expressly disclaims any thing like the idea of archiepiscopal power. " None of us," says he, " has constituted himself a bishop of bishops, neither has any one obliged his colleagues to the necessity of obedience by a tyrannical fear, since every bishop, in the enjoyment of his liberty and power, may exer- cise his own judgment, as he cannot be judged by any other, neither can he judge another, but we all expect the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who only and alone has the power both of presiding over us in the govern- ment of his church and of judging of our con- duct.";]; About the middle of the third cen- tury, the bishopric of Rome was certainly by far the largest in Christendom, and yet, accor- ding to the statement of the individual who then occupied the see, it had belonging to it only forty-six presbyters and seren deacons. § It would seem, too, that the number of pres- byters in that city was unduly great in pro- portion to the number of deacons. We have cause to think that the smaller number of the forty-six presbyters were preachers. Deduct- ing those who were nothing more than ruling elders, it is probable that the embryo pope did not preside over twenty persons who would at the present day be called clergy. || * " He (Cyprian) was bishop of Carthage, and when he wrote his 43d Epistle, the 40th according to Pame. lius, his numbers there were only eight presbyters be- longing to the church of Carthage:'' Vindication of a Discourse entitled The Principles of the Cyprianic age, p. 348. I his Vindication is a work of high authority with prelatists, and its author is known among them as the learned Sage. + Dodwell (Dissert. Cyprianic) expressly says, "Non omnium fuisse preshyterorum, ut vulgo putaut, munus illud docendi." This statement is quoted with appro- bation in Archbishop Potter's Discourse of Church Go- vernment. Ed. London, 1839. P. 155. ♦ Concilium Carthag. De baptizandis hasreticis. Cy- priani Opera. Bingham makes a very candid state- ment when speaking of the origin of the order of metro- politans—" Perhaps," says he, " it took its rise from that common respect and deference which was usually paid by the rest ot the bishops to the bishop of the civil me- tropolis in every province ; which advancing into a cus- tom, was afterwards made into a canon by the Council of Nice." Orig. Eccles. Book ii, ch. xvi. Sec. 2. ? The statistics uf the Church ol Rome, at that period, are given in part of a letter preserved in Eusebius, and addressed by Cornelius bishop of Rome toFabius bishop of Antioch. According to this document there were " forty six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty two candle-lighters; exorcists, readers and door- keepers, in all fifty two ; widows, with the afflicted and needy, more than fifteen hundred." Euseb. Book vi, chap. 4:(. II When in ancient writings we read of the number of clergy in a particular place, we are not to imagine that ADVANCEMENT OF EARLY CITY BISHOPS. 31 It is admitted on all hands that, in the early ages, Christianity progressed chiefly in cities. The void pagan properly signifies a rustic ; but as the great mass of the rural population were still addicted to idolatry, when the truth had obtained an ascendency in the principal towns, the terms heathen and pagan began to be con- sidered as synonymous. As the disciples in the cities increased in numbers and respecta- bility, the city bishops were placed in quite a new position with respect to the country bish- ops. The city bishop was the constant mode- rator of a presbytery consisting partly of or- dained preachers — the country bishop was the only preacher to a poor and perhaps scattered congregation. The city bishops took the lead not only in influence and wealth, but at a time when no system of ministerial training was generally established, they were, doubtless, owing to their local advantages, far superior in education and personal accomplishments. In the interval between the martyrdom of Cyprian* and the Diocletian persecution in the beginning of the fourth century, the church for the most part enjoyed peace — the Christians were gene- rally protected in the exercise of their religion, and even- in some cases promoted to the govern- ment of provinces — butat the same time ambi- tion was busily at work, and a prelatic spirit filled the ecclesiastical assemblies with confu- sion. " Some that appeared to be our pastors," saith Eusebius," deserting the law of piety, were inflamed against each other with mutual strifes, only accumulating quarrels and threats, rival- ship, hostility, and hatred to each other, only anxious to assert the government as a hind of sovereignty for themselves." f When the per- secution passed away, the same spirit re-ap- peared. The city bishops, for at least a cen- tury, had been gradually acquiring an undue influence— when Christianity was established by Constantino as the religion of the empire, their wealth and power were suddenly and amazingly increased — they were prompted to look down with contempt upon the rude and unpolished country bishops — their pride was wounded when they met such men in the as- semblies of the church, and when they found them sitting as their equals in synods and councils. Hence throughout the fourth cen- tury we witness a continued effort to supplant and to extinguish them. The designs of the city bishops were facilitated by various con- curring circumstances. The expense of tra- velling to ecclesiastical assemblies, held per- haps in distant provinces, could not be well sustained by the rural or village pastors — they had little learning, and no personal influence — many of them, through ignorance, had prob- ably been guilty of gross irregularities in the way of ordination, anil few of them seeinto have been aware of the importance of the privileges they were all ecclesiastics in our sense of the word, far even precentors,candle-lighters,door-keepers,and grave- diggers, were called clergy. * A.D.,258. + Euseb. Book viii, chap, iation of Cruse. 1 here r lopt the trans- of which they were about to be deprived. In cases where deputies were required to attend the councils, the city bishops would usually be chosen to represent the churches in their vi- cinity. There is no reason to think that the more influential and aspiring of the presbyters and country bishops would he at all averse to the introduction of a diocesan episcopacy. They would hope one day to occupy the high places of the church, and by seconding the measures of the city bishops, they were only preparing the way for their own future aggran- disement. Besides, the great city bishops were admitted to the confidence of the reigning em- peror, and as they often appear to have ex- pressed his wishes in matters of ecclesiastical arrangement, their measures would be the more readily adopted. It is certain too, that though in that age the principles of ecclesias- tical polity were very little understood, the means employed to deprive ordinary ministers of their rights, were devised with considerable caution. There were, in the ancient church, certain pastors, whose office appears to have been to itinerate in retired districts of the country, where the disciples were but few, and to create or foster little congregations.* When a small group of Christians was collected, a church would of course be organised ; but as the pastor could not be present every Sabbath in the same neighbourhood, it is probable that, as in many of our presbyterian congregations under like circumstances, an elder met the families of his district for reading the Scrip- tures and for prayer. f Those who were first * It is evident that, in many cases, the pastors or bi- shops of villages or country places were not, even in the fourth century, called cliorepiscnpi. This is fully admit- ted by Bingham. He tells us that Mazianzum was but a very small city — " Socrates," says he, " calls it voXi; iurtXii;, a little one ; and upon the same account Gregory Nazianzen styles his own father, who was bi- shop of it ftixgoToXtryiS, a little bishop, and one of the second order. Yet he was no chorepiscopus." And again— "Synesius makes mention of the bishop of Olbiae in one of his epistles, and at the same time tells us the place was but a village, for he calls the people SZftog *»i«flV)i5, a country people." Ecc. Orig. Book ii, cb. 12. Sect. 2. The name chorcpi:i7. london, 1836. i Decline and Fall, chap. 20. II Orig. F.ccles. Book ix. chap. v. sect. i. pi ; * and yet, in the third Council of Car- tilage, held a.d. 397, the case of a bishop who has only one elder, is spoken of as by no means an uncommon occurrence.^ Such facts show that the laws enacted for the abolition of parochial episcopacy did not meet with uni- versal obedience. l'rclatists have often asked with an air of triumph — if diocesan episcopacy he not of di- vine institution, when did it commence ? To this it would lie sufficient to reply, that if it he not recognised in Scripture, we are not obliged to trace its origin; but even in a historical point of view, the question is not of such dif- ficult solution as many are willing to imagine. We can prove by a direct appeal to the ca- nons and history of the church, that the pres- byterian system, or parochial episcopacy, was to a great extent abolished in the fourth cen- tury. We can show by the most distinct and satisfactory evidence, that, prior to that period, bishops were every where established in rural districts, villages, and small cities ; and if, as was actually the case, the pastors of such places he stripped of the power of ordination, we know that prelacy must follow by neces- sary consequence. We have seen how various circumstances conspired to prepare the way for the overthrow of the primitive polity, and how at length the ecclesiastical framework w T as so altered as to accord with the provincial ar- rangements of the Roman empire. But though the city bishops plotted and achieved the de- struction of country and village bishops, yet the history of their existence and suppression still remains to rise up in judgment against prelacy, and to confound its pretensions as an apostolic institution. It has been remarked that in the history of languages we may trace the history of nations, for words change their meaning as institu- tions are altered. If, too, we mark the ap- plication of ecclesiastical terms at different periods, we may observe the rise and growth * Bingham. Orig. Eccles. Book ix, chap. 3, sect. 2. + Sec the account of this council as given by Du Pin or Binius. It would appear that the African churches retained their primitive form much longer than most others. Thorndike, though a prelatist, acknowledges that every good village in Africa was the seat of an episcopal church. Bingham and Maurice endeavour to weaken the force of such a testimony, by asserting that bishoprics in some cases were at a considerable distance from each other ; but it must be remembered that a great part of the country has always been an un- inhabited desert — that for many centuries Christianity was a 1 most entirely confined to the Roman colonies.that in the fifth century the Moors, possessing a portion of tne cities and almost all the open country, arc called (ten- Hies, without any exception, by Victor L'tieensis — and that smile of the Romans themselves long remained un- converted. It would seem from the decrees of the fourth Council of Carthage, held AD. 398, that the African bishops were in most cases merely the chief pastors of congregations. 1 shall quote a few of the canons as givi n by Du Pin — canon 13th, " That the bishop ought to have a lodging (or a little dwelling-house) near the church." Canon llth, " That his household staff should lie of little worth — his table and diet mean, and Chat be ought to acquire authority by his faith and his merit, and notbyexternal pomp. Canon 90th, " That he ought not to trouble himself with domestic affairs, but apply himself wholly to reading, prayer, and preach ing of the word of God." E 34 BISHOPS FORMERLY THICKLY PLANTED. ni' diocesan episcopacy. It is generally ad- mitted, that the word bishop in the New Tes- tament is the designation of an ordinary mi- nister, and vet we know that in the fourth cen- tury it was the title of a prelate. In the se- cond century, the bishop's charge was called his parish, hut in the fourth it was styled his diocese.* Churches were thickly planted in the apostolic age, and it is a most important feet, to which even episcopal writers must bear testimony, tltat in all places a hishopric in the second century was of very limited extent. Binghamf admits that upon the sea-coast of Palestine, " in a line of one hundred and sixty miles,"! there were seventeen or eighteen bi- shoprics. We have cause to think that, in this very line, there were originally several other bishoprics which he does not take into his account, and yet according to his own es- timate, at a time wdien christians were only a fraction of the population, their bishoprics were planted at an average distance of seven Irish miles. Speaking of Latium in Italy, Bingham says, " that in the compass of seventy old Ita- lian miles, which are not quite si.cti/ of the modern, there were between twenty and thirty bishoprics." § Innocent I. was advanced to the papal chair, a.d. 402, and yet it appears from a letter addressed by him to Decentius bishop of Eugubium, that even then, the bishopric of Rome did not extend beyond the limits of the city, and that it had no country parishes be- longing to it. " This is certain," says Bing- ham, || " that the diocese of Rome could not extend very far any way into the country re- gion, because-it was bounded on all sides with neighbouring cities, which lay close around it On the North it had Fidenae, a bishop's see in those times ; though as Cluver and Ferra- rius shew out of Dionysius Hallicarnassensis, it lay but forty stadia, or Jive miles, distant from it. On the East it was bounded by the diocess of Gabii, which some by mistake place seventy miles from Rome ; but Holstentius and Cluver, who are more accurate, tell us it lay in the middle way between Rome and Praeneste, about twelve or thirteen miles from each. A little inclining to the South, lay the diocess of Subaugusta, close by Rome. Here Helena the mother of Constantine was buried, whence it was called Subaugusta Helena. Hol- stentius says the remains of it are still visible at the place called Turris Pignatara. It was so near Rome, that the writers which speak of Helena's interment, commonly say she was buried at Rome, in the church of St. Marcel- line, in Via Lavicana; which is to be under- stood of SL Marcelline's church in Subaugusta, which lay in the way betwixt Rome and La- * The most devoted prelatists are constrained tc make this acknowledgment Thus Bingham says — " No- thing can lie plainer than the use of the word 17a.001x.1a. for a diocess to the fourth century . . . and now about this linn 1 the name ' diocess' began to lie used likewise. — Eccles. Orig. Book ix, chap, ii, sect. 1, 2. + Origines Ecclesiasticae, Book ix, ch. ii. sect. H. % I presume that Bingham speaks of English miles- $ Orig. Eccles. Book ix. chap. v. sect. ■>. II Orig. Eccles. Book ix, chap. v. sect.l. vici, w r hence the way was called Via Lavicana. If we look to the South of Rome, down the river Tiber, toward the sea, there we find three dioceses in three cities, none of than above three miles from each other, nor above sixteen miles from Rome." I now crave your special attention to another and a still more remarkable passage in the Origines Ecclesiasticae. "Any one," says Bingham, " that will allow himself the liberty of making just observations, may easily discern a difference between some of the first conversions and those that followed in the middle ages of the church ; for in the former it. is evident diocesses were generally more nu- merous and not so large as in the latter. The whole extent of Asia Minor, from the Helles- pont to the river Euphrates, is estimated by the best geographers at 630 miles; the breadth, from Sinus Issicus in Cilicia, to Trabezond, at 210 ; yet there were almost 400 diocesses in this tract of land But now if we ljok into any middle age conver- sions, we shall find the number of diocesses very small in comparison of these, and their extent very great , for in Germany, which is computed above twice as large as Asia Minor, being 840 miles in length, and 740 in breadth, there are but 40 bishoprics ; in all Belgium but 18; in Denmark but 15; in Swedeland but 10; in Russia 21; in Poland 30; as Dr. Heylin and other geographers have computed them ; and our number in England, being also a later conversion, bears no proportion to these of Asia Minor, though the isle of Great Britain is not much inferior to it in bigness."* "When Bingham says that there were 400 bishops in Asia Minor, he refers to the condition of the church in the latter end of the fourth century. At that period most of the village and rural bishops were extinguished, so that his state- ment cannot be considered as a fair exhibition of primitive arrangements. Even as appli- cable to the termination of the fourth century, there is cause to think that his estimate is far below the truth, for his calculation seems to be based upon an erroneous principle, f Be- sides it would appear that towards the end of the fourth century, the christians of Asia Mi- nor were still the smaller part of the popula- tion. It has already been observed that, in the middle of the third century, they amounted only to seventeen persons \ in a district of this territory, extending about fifty miles in one direction, and thirty miles in another ; and it may be questioned, whether at the time to which Bingham refers, they formed a. fifth part * Book ix, chap, ii, sect. 4. + The list furnished by Bingham is taken from the names subscribed to ancient councils, or mentioned in ancient records. It is supposed that in one or other of those records the names of nil the bishoprics are con- tained. This, however, is very improbable, for bishop- rics were often vacant ; many bishops seldom attended councils, aud the records of many councils, as well as other important documents, are lost. It appears that in some casts many id' the bishops who attended a council did not subscribe its proceedings. Thus, ac- cording to Du Pin, of 1 |)( * bishops who attended the council of Cabarsussa, held A.D. WJ, there are only 43 subscribers. i Keep. 15. BISHOPS DECREASED AS CHRISTIANS MULTIPLIED. 3o of all the inhabitants.* How different must a bishop oven of the fourth century have been from a prelate of the present day, when, after the suppression of so many rural and village bishops, there was still 400 bishops remaining in a tract of tend which is not much larger than Great Britain, ami in which only a fifth part of the people were evangelised ? There are extant certain notitiu} or catalogues of ancient bishoprics drawn up, as Bingham states, " according to the account that was taken first by the, order of the Emperor Leo Sapiens, about the year 891." Many of the sees men- tioned in these lists are very small, and yet we know that many others existed at a very early period, of which they take no notice. Thus, in Africa, at the time of the Vandalie persecution, in the fifth century, there were, according to Victor Uticensis, in the Zeugitan or Proconsular Province, one hundred and sixty Jour bishops, whilst others reckon even more ; but Bingham tells us, that in one of the most ancient catalogues extant, we "find the names only of one hundred and two, and some of these named twice or thrice over."f About the middle of the third century, it is said by the Council of Antioch, of Paul of Samosata, that he su- borned " the bishops of the adjacent rural dis- tricts and towns" 'I to praise him in their ad dresses to the people. Paganism at that time preponderated, and yet, though Antioch itself was a bishop's see, there were several other bishops in the towns and rural districts in its immediate neighbourhood. In the notitiae of the church, as given by Bingham, no notice is taken of these bishoprics. Many other cases of the mysterious disappearance of ancient bishoprics could be readily produced. In the preceding paragraph, I have submit- ted to you a number of simple facts, generally attested by your own favourite Bingham, and I now invite you to account for them. How was it that the bishoprics of the " first planta- tion" were smaller and more numerous than those which were afterwards erected? How- was it, that when christians were very few and very poor, they required a greater number of bishops than when they became cenj numerous and very wealthy ? When the disciples were thinly scattered over a wide extent, how was it that bishoprics were so small; and as they multiplied within a particular territory, how- was it that bishoprics expanded? How was it that, in process of time, many sees mentioned in the ancient records of the church altogether disappeared, anil that at length we find a soli- tary diocesan presiding over a multitude of consolidated bishoprics ? You may not find it convenient to explain how bishops decreased « Gibbon alleges that, in the reign of Tbeodosius, towards the close of the 4th century, and when the church bad enjoyed more than sixty years the sunshine of im- perial favour, the Christians even in Antioch amounted only to the lii'th part of the population. Decline anil Fall, chap. xv. Antioch was one of the must ancient anil nourishing churches in Christendom. + Book is, Appendix. J 'KtfKTXOTOUS 7»» OfiiQ^UV UygUV -Ti KU.1 'TO - Xiuv.-— Euscb. ltook vii, chap. 30. as christians m ultiplied ; but upon the principles which I have been endeavouring to illustrate, the solution is most simple. An impartial ob- server would, I think, infer that there must have been, meanwhile, a change in the con- stitution of the church, and that diocesan epis- copacy gradually supplanted apostolical pres- hyterianism. Some have alleged that the chorepiscopi were mere presbyters appointed by the city bishops, and invested by them with a certain jurisdiction over the clergy of rural districts. Such, perhaps, may have been the character of those of a later age, but the functionaries of whom we have been treating, and who fiou rished in the beginning of the fourth century, were of a different grade. Many of the highest authorities of the Church of England, such as Beveridge and Bingham, acknowledge that "the chorepiscopi, mentioned in the ancient councils, were proper/;/ bishops."* Had they been merely rural deans, or the assistants of the city bishops, why should their masters have laboured so long and so assiduously to accom- plish their destruction ? Might they not have dispensed with such a class of functionaries by their own authority? Why were so many councils required to effect their demolition? We have seen, too, that there were multitudes of pastors, located in villages and rural dis- trictSj'who were not denominated chorepiscopi — who were simply designated bishops — and who, in point of rank, were on a level with the city bishops. We are assured by Justin Martyr, that in the middle of the second century, the christians on the Lord's day met together in cities or in the country,^ to hear the bishop preach, and that the brethren, or elders, as well as the deacons, were present at the service. We can prove, by the direct testimony of Cle- mens Romanus, that the country bishops were originally of the same rank as the city bishops, and that they were of apostolic appointment. He tells us that the apostles, preaching " Ih rough countries and cities,\ appointed the first fruits of their conversions bishops and deacons over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit. I have thus shewn that ordination by paro- chial ministers is sanctioned not only by Scrip- tural authority, but likewise by the practice of the earliest antiquity. The pastors of the presbyterian church are the true and proper representatives of those who were originally invested with this power, for a bishop of the second century preached regularly to his ilock ; and bis elders and deacons, like the members of our presbyterial sessions and committees, sat every Sabbath under his ministry. When prclatists plead that there were formerly three orders of ministers in the church, they only bear witness against themselves, for they have not in every congregation a bishop, elders and deacons. They must look to presbyterians * Bingham, Bonk ii, chap, xiv, sect. I. j- Kara toXs;; n u.y(>ovs — Apol. ii, p. 98. + Kara X"Z ai °" v xa< * a * s, » — Episllu to th* Corinthians, sect, i'2. 30 PRESBYTERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH ORDAINED. for a specimen of the ancient episcopacy. A prelate who rarely preached, and -who yet had many congregations under his care, was a functionary unknown to the ancient church ; and as far as cither Scripture or the earliest antiquity is concerned] the claims of such a personage to the privilege of ordination may i he fairly rejected as apocryphal. Bishops and Presbyters ordained by Presbyters. When prelatists assert that none but bishops were formerly permitted to ordain, it might be sufficient to reply to them in the words of ( )ptatus, that " none but bishops used to preach." They would thus be reminded of the fact, that a primitive bishop was very different from a modern diocesan. According to the episcopa- lian Palmer, " public teaching and the admi- nistration of the sacraments were always re- served to the bishop in the primitive church, except in cases of necessity ;" but we know that under extraordinary circumstances, even lay persons were permitted both to preach and to baptize.* When a bishop was the pastor of a single congregation, the office of preaching was generally confined to him ; when he was con- verted into the prelate of a diocese, the duty devolved upon his presbyters. As diocesan episcopacy advanced in the church, preaching elders multiplied, and ruliny elders disappear- ed.-)- We have seen that prelacy commenced in the chief towns of the Roman Empire, and we can prove by the clearest testimonies that city presbyters at an early period were accus- tomed both to preach and to orduin. The question as to their right of preaching is not at present before us; but the 13th canon of the Council of Ancyra, held about a.d. 314, attests that they possessed the power of ordination. You profess to delight in the oriyinals, and I accordingly present you with the translation of the Greek text — It is decreed that " it be not lawful for chorepiscopi to ordain priests or deacons ; nor for city presbyters in another parish, without the permission of the bishop."! * See Euseb. Book vi. chap. 19 ; and Bingham, Book ii, ch. xx, sect. 9. + There is cause to think that whilst the abolition of parochial episcopacy involved the subversion of dis- cipline, it also led to the neglect of preaching. After speaking of the privileges enjoyed by those who attend- ed the city churches, Bingham adds, "In the country parishes there was not such frequent preaching, St. Chrysostom says, 'They that lived in the city enjoyed continual teaching, but they that dwelt in the country had not such plenty,' and again, " It was not till the beginning of the sixth century that preaching was ge- nerally set up throughout the country parishes in the Fnnch church, but aboutthat time an order was made by the Council of Vaison (an. 529) that for the edifica- tion of all the churches, and the greater benefit of the whole body of the people, presbyters Should have power In preach, not only in the cities, but in all the country parishes.and if the presbyter was hi!irm,a deacon should rend one of the homilies of the holy fathers.'' Ecc. Orig. Book xiv. ch. iv, sett. 9. t The original according to Balsamon is — X»£i- X'-i^oroniv, uWa p.rM rrqlo&VTi^ovs vroXius, X^iS raw imrt>a.n%\iKi u'tro tb imax-oKou ftira -ygapftoi Tidy iv trtgu, irctpoixla. Prelacy was now beginning to put forth its pretensions with considerable confidence, and an attempt was here made to wrest their pri- vileges from certain of the country bishops. The more influential city presbyters, however, were still permitted to exercise the preroga- tive of ordination. It is worthy of notice, that according to this canon, they take precedence of sonic who are admitted to have been of the episcopal order.* It has been well remarked by Sir Tetor King, that in antiquity " there are clearer proofs of the presbyters ordaining, than there are of their administering the Lord's Supper."f The power of ordination was vested not in the bishop alone, but in the church court, consist- ing of the bishop aud his presbyters. It is plain that the authority of the bishop, in the third and fourth century, was very limited. This fact is generally admitted by respect- able historians. Thus, Du Pin says, that in the third century the bishop " treated his pres- byters as brethren, and did nothing without their advice."! When speaking of the fourth century, he repeats the same statement. The bishop did not pursue this course merely in obedience to the dictates of his own discretion, for he was bound to it by the laws of the church. Thus in the twenty-third canon of the Coun- cil of Carthage, held, as it is supposed, a.d. 398, it is decreed that " a bishop shall hear the cause of no one without the presence of his clergy, otherwise the sentence of the bishop shall be null if it be not confirmed by the presence of the clergy. "§ The twenty- second canon of the same Council is still more decisive as to the question before us. It requires " that a bishop shall not ordain clergymen without the counsel of his clergy," § We have already seen that, in ordinations, all the presbyters present were required to lay on hands along with the bishop. From these premises it must be plain that the bishop did not possess the sole power of ordination. If all the professors of a college must subscribe the degrees of their students, and if every degree be invalid which has not the sanction of a majority of their signatures, it would be foolish to argue that the Principal, because he presides and first appends his name, has the sole power of granting such literary testimonials. If all the presbyters were for merry expected to impose hands in ordination, and if every ordination was null and void which had not the sanction of the majority, it would * According to the Magdeburg Centuriators (Cent, iii, ch. ix,) Malchion, a presbyter of Anlioch, remark- able for eloquence and learning, presided in the se- cond council held in that city, A.D. 269, concerning Taul of Samosata. Eusebius, Book 7, ch. 30, has pre- served part of a Synodical letter addressed by this coun- cil to Diunysiiis bishop of Home, and Maximus bishop of Alexandria. The names of some of the distinguished individuals yho attended the council are recited in the commencement of this epistle, and whilst Malehioa is mentioned, tin mimes o/' many of the bishops who were present are passed over. It is certain that, in this case, the city presbyter took precedence of the country bishops. + Enquiry, pp. 83—84. t Ecc. Hist. vol. i, p. 590. 5 Binii Concilia, vol. i, p. 553. Ed. Cologne. ItiOfi. PRESBYTERS IN THE EARLY CHURCH ORDAINED. 37 be absurd to say, because the bishop, as presi- dent, first laid on his hand and offered up the prayer, that he alone had the power of ordina- tion. In fact, the reasoning which may be employed to prove that presbyters cannot or- dain presbyters, may be also brought to bear against the supposed prerogatives of the epis- copal order ; for it may be shown, in the very same manner, that bishops cannot ordain bi- shops. It is well known that the metropolitan at length claimed the right of presiding at the ordination of all the bishops of his province ; and that such ordinations, performed without his sanction, woidd have been considered in- valid. In the ordination of presbyters, the bishop was assisted by presbyters ; and in the ordination of bishops, the metropolitan was as- sisted by bishops. If then, an association of presbyters, without a bishop, cannot ordain a presbyter, neither can a whole province of bishops, without a metropolitan, ordain a bishop. The city bishops of the third century were but the constant moderators of the presbyte- ries ; but in that capacity they would be usually present at all ordinations. The presbytery is a corporate body, and in all the public acts in which it is concerned, its President may be expected to appear as at least one of its repre- sentatives. It may be easy to show that a bishop was concerned in ordination; but for the reason given, it is more difficult to produce cases in which presbyters alone were present. The bishop, in ordinary circumstances, would be always at his post ; and it is only in espe- cial emergencies, such as when he is sick or in banishment, that we can expect to find the presbyters officiating without him. I conceive that the epistles of Cyprian point out to us in- stances of this nature. Thus, in his exile, we find him writing to his clergy as follows : — " Since the state of the place does not now per- mit me to be present, I beseech you, as you value the faith and your religion, that you per- form there both your men functions and mine, so that nothing as to discipline or diligence be wanting."* In another letter he says : " Trust- ing therefore as well in your affection as reli- gion, of which I have sufficient experience, I both beseech and command you by this letter, that those of you whose presence there may be least invidious and not so perilsome, may per- form my part in carrying on those things which the administration of religion requires."! Had Cyprian not intended in such passages to com- mit to his clergy all that might be considered as peculiar to his own function, would he have thus expressed himself without any reserva- tion ? Does not his language clearly imply that * Quoniam mini interesse nunc non permittit loci conditio, peto vos pro fide et religions vestra, fun- ganiini illic et vestris partibus et ineis ; ut nihil vel ad riisciplinam, vel ad diligentiam desit. — Epist. v, p. 10. ' + Fietus ergo et dlleclione et religione vestra, quam satis novi, his Uteris et hoitoret tnando ; ut vos quo- rum inhume illic invidiusa et non adeo pericufoaa pi sentia est, vice mea tongamtnl circa gerenda ea, qua administrate religtoaa deposcit.— Epis. xiv, p. all the duties of a bishop — ordination includ- ed — might be performed by a presbyter? Long after the time of Cyprian, ordination was re garded as the only prerogative that belonged exclusively to the bishop. Cyprian was remark- able for his high church principles, and had he believed that ordination appertained solely to the bishop, he was not the man to dele- gate his power, and thus compromise the in- terests of his order. But the language of the great Eirmilian, a bishop of the third century, and the contemporary of Cyprian, completely settles the question. " All power and grace," saith he, " are established in the church where elders preside who possess the power as well of baptizing as of confirming and ordaining."* In my discourse-)- I mentioned a conversa- tion between Ussher and king Charles I., on the subject of ordination. When the arch- bishop was asked by his majesty, at the time of the treaty of the Isle of Wight, " whether he found in all antiquity that presbyters alone or- dained any," he replied, "yes, and that he could show his majesty more than that, even that presbyters alone had successively ordain- ed bishops." You commence j r our reply to this statement by your usual caveat respect- ing second hand information. I referred in- deed to the history of Neal, as I considered him an accurate and respectable witness, but I did not entirely rely upon the strength of his authority. I was aware that the truth of the narrative had been acknowledged by episcopa- lian advocates of the most respectable stand- ing. I was acquainted with Bishop Hoadly's book on conformity in reply to Calamy, and I knew that there it was admitted. J Neal has appealed to the evidence on which the matter rests, and if you have not been able to disco- ver it, you should not rashly reject the state- ment as apocryphal, or attempt to impeach the credit of the historian. Neal does not re- fer, as you allege, to a letter from Ussher to Baxter, but to a conversation between the pri- mate and the non-conformist. Baxter ex- pressly asserts that such a conversation oc- curred^ The fact is authenticated by the author of the ' Saint's Rest,' and he was not in the habit of uttering and publish- ing deliberate falsehoods. Neal refers to Calamy' 's Life of Baxter; you, with character- istic sagacity, have been looking for the refer- ence in the Bite by Ornie. It appears from this case, as well as from that of Theodoret and ' Binnii Concilia,' that you sometimes *Omnis potestas et gratia in Ecclesia constituta sit, nbi president majores natu, qui et baptizandi et manum imponendi et ordinandi possidentpotestatem. Cyprian. Epist. l.\xv, p. 221. It is admitted by can- did writers of all churches, that this passage is de- cisive. (See King's Enquiry, p. N4.) The note of the Romanist Eigaltlua upon it is curious — " Seniores et vere W(>S(r(-,vT<(>oi qui et baptutundi et iiutniim impo- nnnii et ordinandi possident potestatem, ordine sic ab ecclesia constitute Sed quare hie non tit mentio nffiriinli ! nisi quod tacite trium illorum potestate includitur." + Presbyterian lam Defended, p. 3". X See Hoadly on Conformity, p. 418. i See his • Second Disputation vindicating the Protestant Churches,' &c, p. 210". — London, 1G53. 38 • THE ALEXANDRIAN PRESBYTERS ORDAINED THEIR BISHOPS. adopt a very round -about method of seeking lor the " originals." I stated in my discourse that Ussher had admitted the validity of Pres- byterian ordination in the articles drown up by him for the use of the Irish church in 1615; but as usual, when you can say nothing that will detract from the weight of an authority, you do not bestow upon it the slightest notice. I shall now furnish you with another testi- mony from the same quarter. In the Appen- dix t? his Life, we are informed that the primate left behind him a written statement, setting forth his sentiments in the following words : " The intrinsical power of ordaining proceedeth not from jurisdiction, but only from order. But a presbyter hath the same order in specie with a bishop : Ergo, a presbyter hath equally an intrinsicul power to give orders, and is equal to him in the power of order. * When I quoted from Neal's account of the conversation between Ussher and the king, I did not happen to append the argument by which the archbishop confirmed his affirmation. You have, however, attempted to set it aside as inconclusive, and I shall now proceed to show that you are not yet prepared to enter the lists with his Grace, as an acute and candid logician. And here I do, though most reluc- tantly, accuse you of one of those very ques- tionable acts, which you have so frequently attempted in the progress of this controversy. According to your representation, the words of Jeromo to which Ussher made allusion are these : " At Alexandria, from Mark the evan- gelist till Heraclas and Dionysius the bishops thereof, the presbyters always were in the ha- bit of nominating as their bishop one chosen from among themselves, and placed in a higher degree. "f You afterwards say : The very next sentence in this epistle to Evagrius proves of itself that Jerome never intended to convey the sense put upon his words by the archbishop, for he immediately adds, ' what can a bishop do, with the exception of ordination, which a presbyter cannot do ?' " If, as stated in your ' Advertisement,' you have actually read the passage in the original, I regret that you have not permitted a discerning public to form a more favourable estimate of your candour. Jerome does not immediately add the passage which you have quoted. Before giving the very next sentence, you should hay e finished the pre- ceding. You have suppressed a clause which completely fixes the meaning of Jerome, and establishes the soundness of Ussher's interpre- tation. I shall now give the whole as it stands in the epistle to Evagrius : " For even at Alex- andria, from Mark tho evangelist until the bishops Heraclas and Dionysius, the presby- ters always were in the habit of* naming bishop one chosen from among themselves and placed in a higher degree, /';; lite same manner as if an army should make an emperor, or the dea- cons should choose from among themselves one whom they knew to be industrious, and should *Life of Hasher, by Kicliard Parr, D.D., his chap- lain, Appendix, p. (i. t Letters, p. Ititf. call him archdeacon. For what can a bishop do, with the exception of ordination, which a presbyter may not do ?" I put the suppressed passage in italics, and I give below the ipsis- sima verba of Jerome, that you may have a distinct prospect of your folly, and that you may blush over the " originals."* According to your view, the presbyters of Alexandria were only intrusted with the nomination of their bishop. You are to remember now that Jer- ome is remarkable for the correctness of his style. According to an eminent authority, " he had more erudition than any person then in the church, the greatest linguist, the greatest critic, the greatest antiquary of them all."f Think then of the statement which, according to your inter- pretation, you would put into the mouth of that distinguished scholar. His testimony would amount to this: " The presbyters always were in the habit of choosing one chosen from among themselves." Jerome introduces the statement to prove that a presbyter and a bishop were originally the same ; but according to your ver- sion, his reasoning would be most inconclusive and puerile. Surely it would not follow that a presbyter must be equal to a bishop, because a presbyter may elect a bishop. Why, too, in this case, should Jerome refer to the church of Alexandria, as affording an example of a par- ticular arrangement ? At that time, the pres- byters all the world over had at least a share in the nomination of their bishops. But the context proves, beyond all controversy, that Jerome is referring to something more. In the preceding part of this letter, he condemns the presumption of a deacon who had ventured to affirm that he was superior in order to a pres- byter. Jerome therefore states that the terms presbyter and bishop were originally indi- cative of the same office. He adds, that af- terwards one presbyter was set over Ms brethren to prevent confusion, and as a remedy against schism. + In confirmation of this point, he alludes to the then well known practice in the church of Alexandria, where the presbyters alone, without any foreign in- terference, had been wont for ages to choose and set apart their bishops. And that this is the true meaning of his language is apparent * Nam et Alexandrite a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionyslum episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu col- locatum, episcopum nominabant ; quomodo si exer- citus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi eligant de se, quem industrium noverint, et archdiaconum voeent. Quid enim facit, excepta ordinatione, episcopus quod presbyter non faciat i* I have above given an almost literal translation of the passage, in order to avoid even the imputation of unfair dealing; but I would have been warranted in giving a version much more lavourable to my own views. I might have render, ed the statement relating to the Alexandrian pres- byters thus: "Tbe presbyters always chose one of their number, placed him in a superior station, and gave him the title of bishop." It would be easy to prove, by a reference to passages of a parallel con- struction, in the best classical writers, that this is the spirit of the original. + Dr. Campbell. X Quod autem posted unus electus est, qui ceteris preponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, in 1 tinusqulsque ailse trahens Christi ecclesiam rum- peret. ALEXANDRIAN BISHOPS ORDAINED BY PRESBYTERS. 39 from the passage which yon have most un- wisely suppressed. The presbyters of Alex- andria, saith he, were in the habit of nomiua ting their bishop, just in the same way as the army now make an emperor, or the deacons an archdeacon. Every one knows the power then exercised by the Roman army, for the individual appointed by the soldiers at once assumed the imperial titles and exercised the imperial authority. The deacons alone per- formed all the ceremonies connected with the inauguration of an archdeacon. Is it not clear, then, that in this passage from Jerome the words nominated (nominabant,) and make, (lariat,) are to be considered as equivalent, and that he meant to attribute to the presby- ters of Alexandria the entire management of all the ceremonies appertaining to the settle- ment of their bishops ? Is not this the only principle upon which we can explain his lan- guage, that it may be consistent with the con- text, and bear upon the argument ? And now, let me crave your attention to the very re- markable clause with which this sentence commences: — " For eves at Alexandria," — (Nam et Alexandriae.) These words clearly imply, that at an early period the presbyters were generally in the habit of ordaining their bishops. The church of Alexandria was one of the largest in Christendom. — According to some, that city was the very birth-place of prelacy* — and yet even theiie the presbyters long continued to ordain their bishops. We may be certain that the practice prevailed in all other places, if even at Alexandria it can be traced so distinctly.f And when Jerome adds, " For what can a bishop do, with the ex- ception of ordination, which a presbyter may not do?" does he not intimate that in his own time, about the termination of the fourth cen- tury, the appropriation of the right to ordain was the only advance which the bisbops had yet been able to make upon the prerogatives of the presbyters ? We can show by other an- * You may be astonished to find that such was the opinion of brotius. He says, — "The authority of bi- shops began, after the death ol Mark, at Alexandria, and by that example, was introduced elsewhere. But as the Apostle L'aul shows, it is plain that the churches bad been governed by the common council of the presbyters, all of whom by Paul are also called bi- shops." — hpist. ad Hieromjm. Bignonium. + The fact, that presbyters elsewhere were originally in the habit of setting apart 'heir bishops, is not with- out the support ol historical testimony. Thus, in one of i he letters supposed to have been written about A.D.148, by Pius of Borne, to Justus of Vienna, the latter is said, upon the demise of his predecessor, to have been " constituted in his place In, the brethren, an 1 clothed with the dress of the bishops " — Tu veto apud Sena- toriam Viennam ejus loco « fiatribus constitutus, et colobio episcoporum restitus. — The form of salutation employe 4 by Pius is remarkable. "Salutat t- Seoatus pauper Christi apud itomiin constitutus— i. e.— The poor Senat- of Christ constituted at Rome, salutes you." At that time the eldership was invented, like a Senate, with the power of judging and determining, and l'ius merely occupied the situation of president Ot moderator, in those days the president seems to have received no formal ordination, but as the Jewish High Priest was installed by the Sanhedrim when tiny put Upon bim his robes ol office, so tin- president was constituted by the brethren when he was clothed by them with the dress nf the bishops. The letters to Jus- tus are considered genuine by Baroniusand Blonde!. cient authorities, that the presbyters of Egypt continued long in the possession of the privi- lege to which Jerome here alludes. Thus the writer who goes under the name of Ambrose, in his comment on the fourth chapter of the epistle to the Ephcsians, says, " In Egypt the presbyters ordain if the bishop be not pre- sent."* Again, in a work attributed to Au- gustine, it is said, " In Alexandria and through- out all Egypt, if a bishop be wanting, a pres- byter consecrates."-)' I am aware that a question may arise as to the import of the word " consecrates," but the meaning which I have assigned to it can be fully vindicated. The writer is referring to a peculiar privilege still belonging to the presbyters of Alexandria, and it can be demonstrated that the right of ordination is the only distinction to which the words can legitimately apply. It was then quite common for presbyters throughout all Christendom, to confirm, and to bless the sacra- mental elements. A case is recorded by Cas- sian, a writer of the fifth century, in which an individual was made a deacon, and after- wards a presbyter, by Paplmutius, an Egyp- tian presbyter. J In support of my views, I can, however, adduce from the writings of Euty- chius, the patriarch of Alexandria, a testimony which admits of no second interpretation. Eutychius lived about the beginning of the tenth century, and he is represented by Mos- heim as a bishop " who cultivated the sciences of physic and theology with the greatest suc- cess, and cast a new light upon them both, by his excellent writings." § He has been called the Egyptian Bede, and it is said he obtained a considerable part of the materials of his his- tory from the archives of the church of Alex- andria. It is plain from the account of Euty- chius, that he did not proceed upon the testi- mony of Jerome, and that he must have de- rived his information from an original and independent source. || As I am about to intro- * Apud iEgyptum presbyteri consignant, si praasens non sit episc.opus. + In Alexandria et per totam /Egyptum, si desit episcopus, conseorat presbyter. Qmest. Vet. et Nov lest. i Stillingfleet thus speaks of this case, — " After episcopal government was settled in the church, yet ordination by presbyters was looked on as valid. For which these instances may suffice. About the year 390, Johannes Cassianus reports, that on^ Abbot Daniel, inferior to none of those who lived in the desert of Scfitis, was made a deacon, a B. Paphnutio BOlitudinls ejusdem presbytcro; in tantum enim vir- tutibus ipsius adaugebat, ut quern vitae meritis sibi et gratia parein nnverat, coaequare sibi etiani sacer- dotii honore festinarat. Siquidem nequaquam ferens in inl'erioreeuiu ministciiodintius immorari,optansque sibi met successorem dignissimum providere, su| erstes rum presbyteri i bonore provexit- What more plain and evident than that there a presbyter ordaiiird a presbyter, which we no where lead was pronounced null by Theophilua, then bishop of Alexandria, or any other at that time." Iren. Part 11. ch. VII. $ Eec. Hist. Cent. x. Part ii. chap.i. II According to Eutychius, the Alexandrian presby- ters ordained the bishop by imposition of hands from the tune of Mark— Jerome merely states 'tint they named turn bishop and placed him in a higher degree. We may presume that at first he succeeded to his office simply by election, and that no particular form of induction was observed; but afterwards, when the episcopate be- gan to be regarded as a distinct order, the presbyters 10 EUTYCHIUS.— APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Juce m.% quotation from Eutychius, methiuks you are ready i» startle me with your prize question— "Have you read it in the original:'" Willi all humility, sir, I must answer — No. The original lies' full before me, hut I can only ga«e at it with wonderment. Were it in Hebrew I might at least adventure a transla- tion; but alas! it is written in Arabic; and of that language I do not know even the let- ters. It has, however, been rendered in a Latin version by the learned Seidell ; and as that gentleman was a lay accessor ill the West- minster Assembly of Divines, I take it for granted that he was a very honest man, and that he has done exact justice to the language of the Alexandrian patriarch. "Mark the Evangelist," saith Eutychius, " appointed twelve presbyters along with Hananias (the first patriarch) who should indeed continue along with the patriarch, so that as the patri- archate became vacant, they should elect one of the twelve presbyters, on whose head the remaining eleven should lay hands and bless him and create him patriarch, and then they should elect some distinguished man, and con- slilutc him a presbyter along with themselves in the place of him who was so made patriarch, so that there should always he twelve. Neither did that institution of presbyters cease at Alexandria,— that is, the creating of patriarchs from the twelve presbyters — until the time of Alexander the Alexandrian patriarch, who was of that number three hundred and eighteen.* Cut he prohibited the presbyters in future from creating a patriarch ; and he decreed that upon the death of the patriarch, bishops should assemble who should ordain the patriarch. Also, he decreed that as the patriarchate be- came vacant, they should elect either from any quarter, or from these twelve presbyters, or from others, as the case might he, some ex- cellent man, and create him patriarch. And so vanished that more ancient institution, ac- cording to which the patriarch was wont to be created by the presbyters." f With these facts before you, will you venture deemed it necessary to ordain him by imposition of hands. Jerome does not seem to have been quite sure when this arrangement ceased, and accordingly, speak- in? somewhat vaguely, he carries it down to Heraclas and Dionysius. Eutychius defines its termination more precisely. * Referring to the number of members forming the Council of Nice, A.D 32-5. According to some there were two hundred and thirty-two bishops and eighty six presbyters and monks in the Council of Nice. — Sei- dell, vnl. ii. C. 4GH. +. Seidell's Works, London, 1726, vol. ii, c. 431, 422. The English prelatisla were greatly confounded by the production of the testimony of Eutychius, and some of them, who COUU plead for the authority of the Irmntian Epistles, could not admit the statements of the Alexan- drian patriarch. Hut in addition to the high character of the writer given by Mosheim, as quoted in the text, it may at present be sufficient to add that his evidence lias been sustained by such competent judges as Seltlen, I'ocock, and Blonde), Even the inlidel Gibbon, who cannot be suspected of any partiality for puritanism, says that the account of Jerome " receives a remarkable confirmation from the patriarch Eutychius, whose testi- mony I know not how to reject, in spite of all the ohjee. lions of the learned Pearson." Dec. and Fall, ch. xv. Note. now to say that in Christian antiquity there is mi instance of ordination by presbyters? To use the words of Eutychius, is not this "the more ancient institution," and is it not clear that it was gradually supplanted by the en- croachments of prelacy? " The laying on of the hands of the presbytery" is to be, found in Scripture — it long continued to be observed in Scotland, in Alexandria, and elsewhere ; but at the time of the Reformation, almost every vestige of the ancient usage had very nearly disappeared. SECT. V. — APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. The next subject which you take up is what you are pleased to call " an important doctrine," — the doctrine of apostolical succession. Had you described it as a fond conceit of Popery, you would have distinguished it by a far more appropriate designation. I have just shown that preshy terial ordination rests upon a scrip- tural foundation, and therefore, according to your own admission, the church to which I belong can lay claim to the high privilege of apostolical descent. John Knox and others of the early Scottish Reformers were originally priests in the Church of Rome ; and as pres- byters can ordain, they could of course transmit their commission to their successors.* The Church of Scotland, as well as the Church of England, has received this title through the pure channel of unadulterated Popery. Some eminent writers of the Church of England ap- pear indeed to feel that, without granting the validity of ordination by presbyters, they can- not themselves trace the apostolical success! mi. Faber mentions that "in the year 558, l'ela gins was actually consecrated bishop of Rome herself not by three bishops but by two bishops and a presbyter."f Speaking of this transac- tion he observes — " In our own church, (the Church of England,) the concurrence of pres- byters with the presiding bishop, in laying bands upon those who are themselves about to be ordained presbyters, is familar and no- torious Presbyters either have or have not a power of transmit- ting the preshy terate. If they have, then the point is conceded. If they have not, then their joint imposition of hands is an unmean- ing and nugatoiy ceremonial. The whole transaction is rendered still more striking by the circumstance, that in the ordination of deacons, there is no concurrence of presbyters. Whence the inference seems to he, that, in the judgment of the Anglican church, a single * At the time of the Reformation in Scotland, some ofthe popish bishops of that country embraced protes- tantism, and became ministers of the presbyterian church. As an instance, I may mention Alexander Gordon, bishop of Galloway. + The account of the ordination of Pclagius, taken from the pontifical book, is thus given by Binius : " As there were not bishops who might ordain him, two bi- shops were found, John of Perusium and Bonus of Fc- rentinum, and Andrew, a presbyter of Ostia, and they ordained him Pontiff',— Concilia, vol. ii, p. 626, APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 11 bishop, without the concurrence of presbyters, cannot legitimately transmit the higher order of the presbyterate."* If the doctrine of Faber be adopted, you will find it difficult to trace your succession even to the time of the Refor- mation, for many instances can be produced in which your bishops have ordained without presbyters. You say to me — " Surely it is not perfectly consistent to endeavour to overthrow the doc- trine of ministerial descent from the apostles in one page, and to cling to it in another— to speak of it as incapable of proof, and then to talk of your own ecclesiastical descent through the Romish or English Churches."f I must tell you, Rev. sir, that the inconsistency is en- tirely a matter of your own creation. I defy you to quote a single line in my discourse in which / cling to the doctrine of apostolical succession. As often as I mention it, I treat it with unmitigated scom. I say, — " If you will not admit that we are true ministers of the church, unless we can show that we are descended from the Mother of Harlots — if you will not confess that we hold a commission from Christ, unless we can prove that we have derived this commission from Antichrist, then we must confess icith shame that we have, even thus, as good a title as others."! If you con- ceive that such a passage establishes my in- consistency, you are heartily welcome to the evidence of the witness. I adduced the history of the Scottish church, to silence the vain boasting of Episcopalians, and to prove that the pretensions of the Church of England to an ex- clusive succession are in fact nothing more than idle gasconade. But so far from cling- ing to the doctrine, I loathe it as I do the very " mystery of iniquity." I believe that it is calculated to fill the children of God with in- terminable perplexity — that it leaves the church without a remedy against the encroach- ments of clerical oppression — that it is an in- sult to common sense; and that it is without a shadow of foundation in the Holy Scriptures. § I shall now consider your arguments seriatim, and show their weakness and irrelevancy. You set out by presuming that I will not question the principle of this doctrine — that is, the fitness of a ministerial succession. It is doubtless most desirable that the church should always be supplied with ministers, and if this he the amount of your proposition, I can readily accede to it. The passage which you quote from the Second Book of Discipline fairly ex- presses my sentiments, when it says that the * Inquiry into the History and Theology of the An- cient Vallenses, &c, p. 566. + Letters, pp. 164, 1.55. X Preshyterianism Defended, p. 50. i " Those who teach people to know the church by these signs, the traditions of men and the succession of bishops, teach wrong. Those two false opinions have given unto the succession of bishops power to interpret the Scripture,and power to makesueh lows in the church as it pleased them God, for the preservation of his church, gives unto certain persons the gift and knowledge to open the Scripture ; but that gift is not a power hound to any order, or succession of bishops, or title of dignity." — Uishop Hooper, the Martyr. Declara- tion of Christ, chap. xi. office of the pastor or minister is " ordinary, and ought to continue perpetually in the kirk." The obligations of duty are unchangeable, and it is right that every church should remain steadfast in the faith, and continue from age to age abounding in the fruits of righteousness. It is right that the worship of God should con- tinue to be celebrated in simplicity and purity — that children and children's children should be pious ; and that ministers in regular suc- cession should proclaim the whole counsel of the Lord. But so long as the heart is deceit- ful above all things and desperately wicked, we cannot argue from what is fittiny to what is fact. In the history of the church, her obli- gations have never yet been fully acknowledged in actual experience. God may be grievously provoked by the sins of Iris professing people, and in consequence he may withdraw faithful pastors, or even sweep away the churches them- selves with the besom of desolation. Many chinches, like that of Rome, have awfully apos- tatized—and others, like that of Sardis, have been annihilated altogether. But we are not to quarrel with the providence of God, because he may permit the ecclesiastical succession to be contaminated or destroyed. We know, in- deed, that He abides faithful, for he always maintains somewhere on earth a living succes- sion of his true worshippers. In Scripture, the church is compared to the moon,* and cer- tainly there is a wonderful analogy between the type and the antitype. The true church, like the moon, is not always visible, nor al- ways in the same place, nor always shining upon the same territory ; and yet she is always in existence, and when seen she always pre- sents the same features. The true church, like the moon, is not known by her antiquity, though she has been from the beginning; nor by the path in which she moves, for that is somewhat difficult of calculation ; but by the full-orbed benignity of her countenance, and by the mild light which shines from her. God has taught us to glory in himself, for through- out all the fluctuations of time he has preserved a true church in the world to serve as his " faithful witness " in the spiritual firmament ; and yet he has instructed us to " cease from man," for we can point to no department of Christendom where the fire of piety has never died, and where the lamps of the golden can- dlestick of truth have never been extinguished. When we think of the perpetuity of the true church, we should be stirred up to praise the Lord — when we consider the apostacies of every visible association of his worshippers, we should learn to beware of trusting to our ec- clesiastical lineage. It is a high privilege to be born of devout parents; and, to a pastor, it is doubtless a most pleasing thought, that those by whom he was admitted to the sacred office were pious and able ministers of Christ; but if the church to which we belong has departed from the faith, or if those by whom we were or- dained were neither office bearers of apostolic appointment, nor men of apostolic spirit, I do * Cant, vi, 10. 42 THE ARGUMENT FROM THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD. not see what comfort we can derive from the consideration that they had a long line of de- parted predecessors. Neither gifts nor graces are communicated according to any particular line of descent, and Scripture expressly rebukes the folly of those who value themselves upon their ecclesiastical extraction. It is written; " Think not to say within yourselves, we have Abraham to our' father; for I say unto you that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham :"* and again, " I will call them my people which were not my people, and her beloved which was not beloved; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not ray people, there shall they be called the children of the living God."f In order to support the doctrine of apostoli- cal succession, you adduce the oft-refuted ar- gument drawn from the Aaronic priesthood. Your statement is as follows : " When God said, the priest's office shall be Aaron's and his sons, for a perpetual statute, and the stranger that cometh nigh shall he put to death, he estab- lished a ministerial succession in Israel, and marked out the precise line in which it should now."* You add shortly afterwards — " In the latter dispensation we find the very same prin- ciple established by the very same process." How strangely does prejudice blind the under- standing! How extraordinary the assertion, that under the Christian economy the minis- terial succession is established &?/ the very same process as under the Jewish dispensation ! The priests of the old law were all descended from Aaron by ordinary generation. All his male offspring had by birthright a title to the sacred office. And is the Christian church furnished with ministers " by the very same process " ? Did our Lord select any particular individual, and say that the episcopal or presbyterial func- tion should be his and his sons for a perpetual statute? Did he declare that none save the male children of the apostles should be per- mitted to preach the Word ? Were all your ancestors in priest's orders, and are you quite sure that Peter, or some one of his brethren, stands at the head of your genealogical chart ? You must trace your lineage through the Church of Rome, and as she established the celibacy of the clergy, I fear you will find it exceedingly difficult to prove that you are ac- tually of Jewish derivation. In the case before us there is in truth a very marked distinction between the Israelitish priesthood and the Christian ministry. Of old, the priests were the literal seed of Aaron ; now the true minis- ters of the gospel are the spiritual seed of Christ. Of old, all the males of the family of Aaron had a claim to he admitted into tho priesthood ; now none save those who are born, of God are duly qualified to act as ambassadors of ihe * Mat- iii, 9. + Rom. ix, 25, 26. t Letters, p. 156. Saviour.* The remark of the apostle Paulf in reference to the Redeemer himself, is in a certain sense true of all the heralds of the cross, for the priests of Judaism were made after the law of a carnal commandment ; whereas all the faithful ministers of Christia- nity are partakers of the power of an endless life. It may be justly said of the sacred office, " No man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron. "J Aaron's call was special, and it was thus dis- tinguished from that of any of Ins descendants. He was pointed out by a particular communi- cation as the High Priest of Israel. I believe that every true minister of the New Testament is also called of God to labour in the spiritual vineyard. The Church of England recognises this principle, for the bishop demands of each candidate for ordination whether " he trusts that he is inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon him this office and ministration." You must see, then, that in order to establish our claim as ministers of the New Testament, we must adopt a process very different from that which a Jewish priest would have pursued. He could produce his genealogical table — we must give evidences of a new birth and of suit- able endowments. He required only to show that he was of the family of Aaron, and that he did not labour under certain ceremonial im- pediments — we should have reason to believe that we are regenerated by the Spirit and called of God. There is besides, another point of view hi which your argument is defective. You have not proved that there was uninterruptedly a ministerial succession in ancient Israel. The Scriptures seem to teach otherwise. Thus it is said — " Now for a. long time, Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law."§ I admit, indeed, that the family of Aaron was always providentially preserved, and that the tribe of Levi never failed ; but it does not appear that those who should have acted as priests and Levites always continued to exercise their functions as ministers of God. It is the opinion of many learned men, that there was no high priest in Israel from Phinehas the son of Elea- zar unto Eli — an interval of at least two hun- dred years. Here, too, the line of descent was evidently changed. || I intimated in my discourse, that any one of your prelates, even the Archbishop of Canter- bury, would find it exceedingly difficult to prove his succession from the apostles. I said that " in order to make out his case, he must be prepared to produce the accredited regis - * It does not follow from anything stated in this Let- tor, that ordinances dispensed by unconverted ministers who belong to an evangelical church are absolutely inva- lid. Such a church has the right of possessioyi (see Sect. II,) but in conferring the sacred office she may mistake the spiritual character of a candidate. Still, such of her ministers as are really unregenerated may preach the truth, and the ordinances dispensed by them are valid, for they act as her accredited representatives. + Hebrews, vii, 16. t Hebrews, v, 4. S 2 Chronicles, xv, 3. II See Vitringa de Synagoga, Lib. i, Par. 2, cap. 6. APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. 43 tries not only of the ordinations, but of the baptisms of his predecessors — he must show how his succession could be transmitted through a female Pope — he must prove that there were none irregularly ordained in tbe line of his forerunners — and he must demon- strate how, in times when pontiff excommuni- cated pontiff, his commission was conveyed through a pure stream of descent."* How do you meet this difficulty? Do you say thai your proof is forthcoming, and that your regis- tries are ready for examination ? Not at all. You invite me to study the "analogy" of Bishop Butler, and in order to convince me that you possess a very slender share of the clear dis- crimination which distinguished the author of that admirable work, you immediately con- found moral and mathematical certainty. You tell me, I have no demonstration that Calvin " wrote what it is believed he wrote. "f Why, sir, / can prove it as easily as that you wrote the letters on ' Episcopacy, Ordination, Lay Eldership, and Liturgies ' If you can furnish me with the same hind of demonstration, I shall be perfectly satisfied. You are to observe, that if the title to the sacred office must be transmitted through an " unbroken" line of episcopal predecessors, a single, breach invalidates your ministerial commission. Even though the breach could not be proved, the consequences would be equally fatal. If God has ordained this method of conveyance, the want of a solitary link, though the defect may not be noticed, deprives the church of an authorized ministry. In the eye of him who has established this means of trans- mission, the title is thus destroyed. If I can make it probable that a deficiency exists, it must consequently be probable that you have no title to the ministry. If I can prove that a link is wanting, it must be certain that you are without a commission. And, doubtless, if there be any truth in history, you must be, according to your own principles, in this hope- less predicament. Dr. Boyton says, that the apostolical authority has been transmitted by KD unbroken succession to the bishops of your church, and that thus you derive tbe title to your ministry. He adds, that this authority is traceable in your church to the apostles. You appear to feel that when your learned friend signified his ability to trace the succes- sion, he made rather an awkward affirmation. You are now perhaps pretty well satisfied that the attempt would be outrageously preposte- rous, and you therefore prepare the way for a retreat by telling me that I ought to be satis- lied with probable evidence. You ask me — "on what demonstration docs the title to pro- perty rest?" % I can inform you that a very Blight informality may ruin the title to an estate. I have, myself, known a case where tlie want of a third witness to a will, in which freehold property was mentioned, diverted the inheritance into another channel. You know * Presbyterianism Defended, p. 39. + Letters, p. 160. } Letters, p. 160. that the neglect of a circumstance apparently very trivial, may invalidate an ordination. You mention a case where a presbyter and two deacons were deposed, " because the bi- shop, who was infirm of eye sight, employed a presbyter to use the consecration prayer, while he himself laid hands upon them." * 1 suspect, that in tracing down your line from the apostles, you will have to account for many informalities of a much more serious charac- ter. You say to me, "you would not expect that the proprietor of an estate which had come down to his ancestors in the days of the Con- quest, should be obliged to produce the origi- nal title-deeds, and every paper of every kind bearing upon the transmission of the estate. You would not expect him to prove that every will by which every successive inheritor be came possessed of the property was legal ; that every marriage in the family was legal ; that no substitution of child for child had taken placfi when the infant heir was in the cradle. It would be absurd to require such a line of proof as this." -J- Had you been acquainted with the ' Commentaries on the Laws of Eng- land,' you would not have produced so irrele- vant an argument. I can inform you that it. is not necessary for a landed proprietor to trace up his title to the Norman conquest. Should you ever purchase an estate, your legal ad- risers will be able to tell you that there is a ' Statute of Limitations,' which will save you an immensity of trouble. " The use of these statutes of limitation," says Blackstone, " is to preserve the peace of the kingdom, and to pre- vent those innumerable perjuries which might ensue, if a man were allowed to bring an ac- tion for any injury committed at any distance of time."! -Again, " l n a ^ these possessory actions there is a time of limitation settled, beyond which no man shall avail himself of the possession of himself or his ancestors, or take advantage of the wrongful possession of his adversary."§ And again, " The possession of lands in fee simple, uninterruptedly, for three score years, is at present a sufficient title against all the world, and cannot be impeached by any dormant claim whatsoever." || You are to observe, however, that an irregular marriage * Letters, pp. 150, 151. It is right to state that your account of the canon of the Council of Seville is incor- rect. The council was held in the seventh century, though you quote it as evidence of the usages of primi- tive Christianity. According to you, the hishop laid '* hanrU" on those ordained. The original merely says, that he laid " his hand" (maiuun snam) upon them. (See Binii Concil. vol. ii, p. 982.) — You make the same mistake when quoting the canon of the Council of Car- thage. (Letters, p. 148 ) It appears, from many ancient documents, that the hishop, when ordaining deacons or presbyters, laid on only his rii/ht hand. 'I bos, the author under the name of Dionysius, as quoted by liingham, says of the bishop — | sworn not to re-assume the ecclesiastical, state, there- fore he was to bo taken no otherwise than for * Ann. Ecc torn, x, p. fi79. + Honk of Martyrs, liy Seymour, p. 90. i Ecc. Hist. Cent, x. Part, ii, chap. ii. .00 THE CHAIN OFTEN BROKEN. a secular man. Others alleged again, that whatever Formosus was, yet for the dignity of the order, and for the credit of those irhom he ordained, all his consecrations ought to stand in force, especially as Formosus was afterwards received and absolved by Pope Martin from his perjury and degradation " After Formosus had governed the see of Rome five years, Boniface VI succeeded, who continued hut five-and-twenty days. Then came Stephen VII, who so hated the name of his predecessor Formosus, that he abrogated and dissolved his decrees, and taking up his body after it was buried, cut two fingers off his right hand, and commanded them to be cast into the Tiber, and then buried the body in a private or lay-man's sepulchre ! " After Stephen had sat in the chair of pes- tilence one year, pope Romanus succeeded, and sat three months, repealing the acts de- creed by Stephen against Formosus. Next to him came Theodore II, who, taking part with Formosus against Stephen, reigned but twenty days. Then sat pope John IX, who, to confirm the cause of Formosus more surely, held a synod at Ravenna, of seventy-four bishops, with the French king and his archbishops pre- sent at it. At this council were ratified all the decrees and doings of Formosus, and the contrary acts of the synod of Stephen VII were burned. This pope continued not quite two years, after whom succeeded Benedict IV, who kept the chair three years. After whom Leo V : he, within forty days of his pa- pacy, was taken and cast into prison by one Christopher, his own chaplain. Which Chris- topher, being pope about the space of seven months, was likewise himself driven from his papal throne by Sergius III, as he had done to his master before. And thus, within the space of nine years, nine popes had succeeded one after another. Then Sergius, after he had thrust down pope Christopher, and shorn him and put him as a monk into a monastery, occupied the room seven years. This Sergius, a rude man and unlearned, very proud and cruel, had before been put back from the pope- dom by Fonnosus above mentioned. There- forego revenge himself on Formosus, he caused the body of Formosus, where it was buried, to be taken up ; and afterwards sitting in the papal see, (as in his pontificalibus), first de- graded him, then commanded his head to be smitten off, with the other three fingers that were left, and then commanded his body to be thrown into the Tiber, deposing likewise all such as by Formosus had before been conse- crated and invested." * By recurring to the list already furnished,f you will perceive that Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury, was ordained at Rome by pope Formosus. From the preceding extracts, you see that this Formosus crept through perjury into the papal chair, and that even in that de- generate age, the lawfulness of his consecra- tion was disputed. Some openly affirmed that, " as he was solemnly deposed, degraded, » Pages 95, 90. + Page 47. unpriested, and also sworn not to resume the ecclesiastical state, therefore he ought to be taken no otherwise than for a secular man." His acts were afterwards rescinded, and it does not appear that the sentence of Sergius de- posing all whom he had consecrated was ever repealed. Plegmund never was re-consecrated, and yet for twenty six years he continued to ordain other English bishops as the sees be- came vacant. He seems, indeed, to have had an unusual share of employment in the way of ordination. Thus Inett says : " There is ground to think there is truth in what is said of the erecting new bishoprics about this time, and the consecration of seven bishops in one day by Plegmund, archbishop of Canterbury, in the beginning of king Edward's reign."* But if the acts of Plegmund be invalid, the " unbroken line" in many a diocese is fairly destroyed. You see, then, that the succession in your church is identified with the fate of pope Formosus. In order to preserve the chain, you must take off his sentence of degra- dation, and prove him to be a true and lawful bishop. I shall now proceed with my extracts from Foxe : — "After Sergius was pope Anastasius. After Anastasius had sat two years, followed pope Lando, the father (as some historians think) of pope John, which John is said to have been set up by Theodora, an infamous woman of Rome, either against Lando, or after Lando to succeed in his room. Luithprand mentions this Theodora and pope John X, and says, that Theodora had a daughter named Marozia, which Marozia had a son by pope Sergius, who afterwards was pope John XI. The same Marozia afterwards married Guido, marquis of Tuscia, through the means of which Guido and his friends at Rome, she had this pope John X smothered with a pillow after he had reigned thirteen years, that so John XI, her son, might succeed after him. Butbecause the clergy and people of Rome did not agree to his election, therefore pope Leo was set up. Thus pope John, the son of Sergius and Ma- rozia, being rejected, pope Leo reigned seven months. After him pope Stephen two years, who being poisoned, then was pope John" XI, the son of Sergius and Marozia, set up again in the papacy, where he reigned near the space of five years. Of the wickedness of this Ma- rozia, how she married two brothers, one after the death of the other, and how she governed all Rome, and the whole church at that time, I let pass. ...... " In the order and course of the Roman bi- shops, mention was made last of Agapetus II, after whom next succeeded pope John XII. This pope is noted to be very wicked and infa- mous, with abominable vices, an adulterer, gamester, an extortioner, perjurer, a fighter, a murderer, cruel and tyrannous. Of his cardi- nals, some he put out their eyes, from some he cut off their tongues, some their fingers, some their noses, &c. In a general council before the emperor Otho I, these objections were ar- * Orig. Anglic, vol. i, p. 299 THE CHAIN OF SUCCESSION OFTEN BROKEN. 51 tided against him : " That he never said his ser- vice ; that in saying his mass he did not com- municate ; that he ordained deacons in astahle; that playing at dice he called for the devil to help ; that for money he made boys bishops ; * that he committed adultery ; that he put out the eyes of the bishop Benedict; that he caused houses to be set on fire ; that he brake open houses ; that he drank to the devil ; that he never crossed himself," &c. For which causes he was deposed by the consent of the emperor with the prelates, and pope Leo VIII was sub- stituted in his place. But after his departing, pope John was restored again to his place, and Leo was deposed. At length, about the tenth year of the popedom of this John, he being found without the city with another man's wife, was so wounded by her husband that within eight days after he died " Benedict IX was fain to sell his seat to his successor, Gregory VI, for £1500, at which time were three popes together in Rome, reigning and raging one against another ; Be- nedict IX, Sylvester III, and Gregory VI ; for which cause the emperor, coming to Rome, displaced the three monsters, placing Clement II in the papal chair. "f You must be prepared to trace the episcopal succession through all these representatives of Antichrist, before you can establish the unbro- ken line of the Church of England. If you can make good your footing here, I confess you may attempt any thing. For the sake of a lit- tle variety, I shall now present you with an ex tract from Mosheim : " At the commencement of tliis century, the Latin church was divided into two great fac- tions, and was governed by two contending pontiffs, Bonifice IX, who remained at Rome, and Benedict XIII, who resided at Avignon. Upon the death of the former, the cardinals of his party raised to the pontificate, in the year 1404, Cosmat de Meliorati, who assumed the name of Innocent VII, and held that high dig- nity during the short space of two years only. After liis decease, Angeli Corrario, a Venetian cardinal, was chosen in his room, and ruled the Roman faction, under the title of Gregory XII. A plan of reconciliation was however formed, and the contending pontiffs bound themselves, each by an oath, to make a voluntary renun- ciation of the papal chair, if that step were necessary to promote the peace and welfare of • fn the dark ages it was not uncommon for very young persons to be made bishops. Such irregularities si-em to have been quite common at the time of the Re- formation. Calvin says — " Even boys, scarcely ten years of age, have, by the permission of the Pope, been made bishops." Instit. Book iv. ch. v. Some of the popes themselves were mere children when advanced to the papal throne. Thus, according to Inett, Benedict IX, when " a boy of about ten or twelve years of age," was chosen pope, and, though a most profligate lad, he con- tinued lor nearly eleven years to discharge "all the func. tions incumbent on a bishop of Rome." Orig. Anglic. vol. i, p. 3tfl. + Pages 96, 103, 107. I quote from the Book of Mar- tyrs by Seymour rather than the larger work, simply be- cause it is more accessible. I may state, however, that Seymour has expurgated some of the most puritanical passages. In proof of this, I may refer, as an example, to the account of Wicklill'e. the church; but they both violated this solemn obligation in a scandalous manner. Benedict XIII, besieged in Avignon by the king of France, in the year 1408, saved himself by flight, retiring first into Catalonia, his native country, and afterwards to Perpignan. Hence eight or nine of the cardinals who adhered to his cause, seeing themselves deserted by their pope, went over to the other side, and, joining publicly with the cardinals of Gregory XII, they agreed together to assemble a council at Pisa, on the 25th of March, 1409, in order to heal the divisions and factions that had so long rent the papal empire. This council, how- ever, which was designed to close the wounds of the church, had an effect quite contrary to that which was universally expected, and only ser- ved to open a new breach, and to excite new divisions. Its proceedings, indeed, were vigo- rous, and its measures were accompanied with a just severity. A heavy sentence of condemna- tion teas pronounced, the 5th day of June, against the contending pontiffs, who were both declared guilty of heresy, perjury, and contumacy, un- worthy of the smallest tokens of honour or re- spect, and separated ipqp facto from the com- munion of the church. This step was followed by the election of one pontiff in their place."* By referring to the list f you will observe that Henry Chichley, or Chichesley, Archbishop of Canterbury, was consecrated by Gregory XII. You see, however, that this same Gregory had been previously condemned by a council as having no title to the popedom; and Foxe adds, that in another council — the Council of Con- stance, held a.d. 1415 — decrees were made, " annulling all his acts and proceedings."! It appears from Foxe that Henry Chichesley was a grievous persecutor of the church of God — the Pope by whom he was introduced into his office was not only degraded as an usurper, but cut off from christian communion, and all his consecrations were pronounced to be invalid. Chichesley, however, without any other conse- cration, continued for nearly thirty years to con- fer orders on the bishops and clergy of Eng- land. Is there no flaw in this case, in the line of succession ? You have here, sir, a sample of your title- deeds. I might easily multiply my specimens, but I forbear. If you think such a tenure of any value, I can only pity your delusion. Do you not put your ministerial authority in jeo- pardy when you support it by such credentials ? Is it wise to say that your commission, as an ambassador of Christ, is to be found in docu- ments so very unsatisfactory ? Is it reasonable to affirm that none save those who can trace up a succession such as that for which you plead, can be fully qualified to administer the sacra- ments ? You will thus only awaken distressing doubts as to the validity of your own orders, and involve your hearers in endless genealo- gies, wliich minister questions rather than godly edifying. And do you not think that the * Ecc. Hist. Ctut. xv, part ii, chap. ii. + Page 47. X Book of Martyrs, by Seymour, p. 294. 52 THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. common sense of the christian people will re" volt against you, when you tell them that a drunken Roruish priest has a more valid title to the sacred office than such a man as Dr. Cooke or Dr. Chalmers? You have failed to show that there is a single text in the. Word of God which affords even a plausible foundation for your doctrine of apostolical descent. It is part and parcel of the absurdities of Popery, and I greatly wonder that a well-instructed Protestant should venture openly to give it his countenance. You conclude your remarks on this subject, by addressing me in these words : " Now, sir, I have done with the apostolic succession, sa- tisfied I am that this doctrine would not have been honoured as it has been with the bitterest and most taunting assaults of dissent, if it were the frivolous thing you represent it, if it were not one which touches to the quick those com- munities which cannot lay claim to it."* Al- low me to remind you that I am no dissenter. Though I do not attach much importance to my genealogy, yet I belong to a church at least as ancient as your own, I rejoice, too, that I can distinguish the sincere milk of the Word from the foulest dregs of popish absurdity. I abhor the idea of having such a man as Pope Formosus, or Pope John XII, as my spiritual progenitor; and you labour under a grievous misconception, if you think that you would touch me " to the quick," even were you able to prove that I cannot lay claim to any such re- lationship. And now, sir, I too have done for the present with the apostolic succession. I have slain the monster, and I shall meanwhile leave him to putrefy ; but if either you or Dr. Boyton be still determined to feast upon the dead carcase, I hope I shall yet be spared to drive you away from the abomination, and to bury it out of your sight for ever. 8ECT. VI. — IGNATIUS, CKANMEB, AND THE BTXOD OB DOBT. Having thus examined all the great ques- tions discussed in your letter, I shall now refer to some other points which you have noticed. And first I shall make a few remarks respect- ing your favourite authorities, the epistles at- tributed to Ignatius. You speak of Jerome as " our chief supporter among the fathers," and when we consider that our friend is almost un- rivalled in acuteness and in learning, we have reason to rejoice in his advocacy. You can derive but little consolation from the thought that the Ignatian epistles are your leading wit- nesses. I certainly consult for the credit of the bishop of Antioch, when I plead that the letters ascribed to him are either grossly inter- polated or altogether spurious; for when you admit them to be genuine, I do not see how you can avoid the inferenco that their author must have been a fit subject for a lunatic asy- lum. I have already animadverted on the memorable exhortation. ." Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as * Letters, p. 164. the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhed- rim of God, and college of the apostles." Do you really believe that this sentence is at all parallel to the passages you quote from Poly- carp and Paul ? When Paul says, " Servants be obedient to them that are your masters ac- cording to the iiesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ "*. . he suggests that obedience is enjoined by God, and that from a regard to the divine authority, it ought to be conceded. But when Ignatius says, " Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ," it is clear from the general strain of his epistles, that he claims for them this reve- rence upon the superstitious presumption of their personal consequence. Paul teaches that piety consists in obedience to the law of God; Ignatius appears anxious to inculcate that the perfection of holiness is attained by an implicit submission to the will of the bishop. You must observe, too, that the passages you quote from Scripture have otherwise no resemblance to the exhortation of Ignatius. Had it been said, " Let all reverence the bishop, presbyters, and deacons, as Jesus Christ," there might have been something plausible in your attempted vindication ; but in the case before us, the office- bearers of the church are distinguished into three grades, and each is made to challenge a corresponding reverence. Does not the exhor- tation suggest to us that the Son is not to be re ■ verenced as the Father, even as the deacons are not to be honoured as the bishop ? Do you not know that Calvin objected to these Epistles because they were strongly impregnated with Arianism, and that in one of them, which you indeed consider doubtful, it is expressly men- tioned as a heresy propagated by the devil, that Christ is " God over all !"f You seem dissatisfied, because I have ac- cused Ignatius of blasphemy. I did not, how- ever, advance the charge without due deliber- ation. The exhortation already quoted is not the only passage in which he employs very unguarded language, when speaking of bishops, elders, and deacons. Thus, in the Epistle to the Magnesians, an epistle which you acknowledge to be genuine, he says, — " I exhort you, that ye endeavour to do all things in a divine con- cord, the bishop presiding in the place of God, and the elders in the place of the sanhedrim of the apostles, and the deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the service of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the world, and appeared in the end."J Does it not occur to you, that the Ignatian bishop has a great resemblance to him who " as God sit- teth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God? "§ And as this writer thus puts the bishop in the place of God, so he else- where puts himself in the place of Jesus Christ. You have no doubt but that the Epistle to the Ephesians was written by a disciple of the apostles; and yet it contains the following » Eph. vi,5. + See Epistle to the Sardians, Section 2. t Epist. to the Magnesians, sect, vi. i 2 Thess. ii, 4. THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES. 63 startling announcement : — " Inasmuch as there is no contention nor strife among you, to trouble you, ye must needs live according to God's will. My soul be for yours, and I myself the expiatory offering for your church of Ephesus, so famous throughout the world. "* If this be not blasphemy, I know not what is entitled to the name. It is not necessary that I should enter farther at present into the discussion of the question relating to the value of the Ignatian epistles. In one of the notes to my discourse f I have presented you with a goodly number of res- pectable authorities, bearing witness to their worthlessness ; but after having defied the host I have drawn up in array, you immediately leave the field amidst a flourish of trumpets. You should have known that a living dog is better than a dead lion, and that instead of ap- pealing to the shades of" Ussher, Vossius, Pear son, and Hammond, " you should have appear- ed in propria, persona to vindicate the honour of these much calumniated letters. I too can turn to the works of the illustrious dead ; and in the note to which I have adverted, I have pointed to men,J as potent as the mightiest of your literary champions, who have denied that they are genuine. I have shown that the very passage which has been so much controverted, is not, as you give it, to be found in the ori- ginal ; and that whether the external or inter- nal evidences be canvassed, it can be proved to possess indubitable marks of forgery. Think not, learned sir, that I pretend to any thing like your amazing erudition ; for with you, if I may judge from the recurrence of the phrase, " swimming in the depths of scholarship " ap- pears to be a favourite pastime ; but as for myself, I have such a dread of drowning, that I am unwilling to leave the terra, firma. Still, however, could I have induced you to desist for a little from your delightful recreation, I would have given you full time to put on your armour ; and with no other weapon than the naked truth, I would have had the courage to withstand you even on your own shores. On * Epist to the Ephesians, sect. viii. The above is archbishop Wake's translation of the passage. + Presbyterianism Defended, pp. 75, 76. X Calvin, Blondel, the Centuriators of Magdeburg, Salmasius, and Daill6. To these I might add Turretine, Campbell, and many others. Archbishop Ussher pre- sented Salmasius wilh a copy of his Dissertation con- cerning the Ignatian epistles, and took occasion at the same time to send him a very complimentary letter, ad- dressed as follows: — " Nobillissiino et Dociissimo viro D. Claudio Salmasio." In this letter, speaking of the Ignatian Epistles, the primate says, — " Sicubi a te dis- sentio, in ea temperatum videbis modesiik, quam tibi spero nnn displicituram. Quicquid sit : id tibi persua. deas velim,eorum qui adhuc tibi ignoti sunt, reperturum te neminem, qui et te et tua in rtmpuhlicam titerariam merita pturis astimet." — (Ussher's Letters, p. 508.) Hut, according to Mr. liojd, Salniasius is one of (hose who only " d'tbbltd in the sAn/Vons" of scholarship '. Calvin's opinion concerning the Ignatian epistles is sufficiently decided. "There is nothing," saith he, " more filthy than that trash which has been published under the name of Ignatius- Wherefore their impudence is the more intolerable, who furnish themselves with such for- geries, tor the purpose of deception." — (Inslit. book i, chap, xiii, sect. V9.) Blondel declares — "1 am constrained to believe that they arc alt forgeries." — Apol. l'raef. p. 40. a former occasion I did not fail to compliment you very highly, because you had the indepen- dence to differ from all the celebrated writers of your party, as to the number of the genuine letters of Ignatius. In your ' Sermons on the Church,' you seemed inclined to acknowledge only four ; and as your discourses were preach- ed in the hearing, and published at the request of the Bishop and the l)ean, I took it for gran- ted lhat those learned dignitaries had consented to the reduction. I was not without hopes, that the number might soon come down to two ,• and that, with the progress of enlightenment, these remains of barbarism would gradually vanish altogether. But in your • Letters ' you have taken up a new position, and you have thus quite scattered my expectations. You were perhaps alarmed by my encomiums, re- membering, it may be, the saying of the wary Trojan, — " Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes. " You therefore recede from your concessions, and raise the cry of " No surrender." It now appears that you are not prepared to object very decidedly to any of the fifteen epistles attributed to Ignatius. You say indeed, very modestly, that " there are eight epistles which are of doubtful authority," and it seems that in your doubtful list you have included the letter to the Virgin Mary. Here again you differ from the most learned men of Protestant Christendom ; for even archbishop Ussher had so little doubt upon the subject that he uncere- moniously dismissed nine of these epistles from his corrected edition. After all, some may perhaps consider that I do not consult very wisely for my own interests, by wishing to set aside the works attributed to Ignatius. The Ignatian bishop was nothing more than a Presbyterian minister of remark- able pomposity.* He ruled over only a single congregation ; and he appears to have kept the various members of his flock in due subjection. " Whatsoever he shall approve of," saith Ig- natius, " that is also pleasing to God. " f The Pope himself could not have desired more ample authority. The elders and deacons also appear to have enjoyed a most enviable degree of dignity, and to have lived in very familiar intercourse. "Hearken unto the bishop," saith Ignatius, " that God also may hearken unto you. My soul be security for theirs that sub- mit to their bishop, with their elders and dea- * Ignatius speaks of the bishop ofEphesus, the bishop of Magnesia, and the bishop of Tralles. Magnesia was distant from Ephesus about twelve Irish miles, and from Tralles about three Irish miles. Tertullian, writing about the beginning of the third century, intimates (ad Scapulam) that the tenth part of Carthage was then chris- tianized, and as he was pleading that the church might not be exposed to persecution, we may presume that he did not wider-rate the numbers of the disciples. Sup- posing that the Ignatian Epistles were written fifty years before, it is clear that the christians in Ephesus, Mag- nesia and Tralles, must have formed a very small por- tion of the inhabitants. How ridiculous to suppose that the Ignatian bishops were diocesans! The diocese of the bishop of Magnesin could not haveexteuded, at least in the direction of Tralles, more than a mile and a half, or possibly two miles. The epistles themselves contain abundant proof that every bishop had only one altar or communion-table, and one congregation. + Epistle to the Smyrneans, section 8. :>\ CRANMER PARTIAL TO PRESBYTERIANISM. cvns. And may my portion be together with theirs in God. Labour with one another, con- tend together, run together, suffer together, sleep together) and rise together. " * I here quote from the epistles, which you acknow- ledge to be of undoubted authority. There is, however, another passage which I have not yet adduced, but which you may still more admire. "The more silent," saith Ignatius, "a man sees the bishop, he ought to reverence him the more. " f I fear this doctrine^vould not find very ready acceptance with the presbyters of the church of Raphoe. I have never been very prolix in my discourses ; and though I have not yet reached the perfection of profound silence, they are persuaded, I believe, that their bishop is already sufficiently endowed with the gift of taciturnity. What if you were to select this Ignatian apothegm as the subject of a sermon which you could prefix to the next edition of your ' Letters, ' and dedicate to the silent prelates of the United Kingdom ? You are, I perceive, well disposed to con- trovert my statements respecting Archbishop Cranmer's partiality to presbyterianism. And here, as usual, you commence with your com- plaint respecting second-hand information. I have only to say that I am still quite content with my authority. Dr. M' Crie is my witness, and I delight to honour him, for there is not a writer in the English language who excels him as an honest, an accurate, and a learned his- torian. Happy had it been for you had you been under the care of such a guide, for you would thus have escaped that melancholy ex- posure which yet awaits you. To say, that ■Cranmer was well-affected towards the Scot- tish ecclesiastical system is, according to you, " equivalent to a charge of hypocrisy. " The archbishop openly avowed his predilections, and therefore your accusation against him falls to the ground. You may be well disposed to pursue a course upon which you may never enter. You may be, and I hope you are, in- clined to matrimony, for I very much dislike the celibacy of the clergy ; but I would be treating you to " the drollest logic in the world, " were I to charge you with hypocrisy, because you are not actually married. The fault may not be your own. Cranmer was placed in a somewhat similar position. He was extremely anxious to promote the farther reformation of the church, but he was prevent- ed, by the popishly- affected clergy and the circumstances of the times, from carrying out all his desires into execution. It appears that Cranmer and others were appointed to draw up the ordination offices in 1550, and you quote extracts from the forms which were prepared as evidences of the real sentiments of the Eng- lish Reformer. A little consideration might have convinced you that such proof is very far from being conclusive. Do you suppose that a minute of synod would be taken as in- dicative of the opinions of all the ministers pre- sent? Do you not know that it only expresses * Epistle to Polycarp, section 6. + Epistle to the Ephesians, section 6. the mind of the majority ? Cranmer seems to have sanctioned the ordination service, because he considered it the best that could be framed under existing circumstances — he was always unwilling to alarm the public mind by precipi- tate changes — and yet there is on record ample evidence of his partiality to presbyterianism. I doubt not but that you have diligently searched his works, and yet the only proof you can produce from them in behalf of his episco- palianismis one solitary passage, where he says that the apostles " made bishops and priests. " From this expression you gravely draw the in- ference, that in the opinion of Cranmer, bishops and priests are two distinct orders. In the first chapter of the Acts, Peter, according to our translators, addresses the disciples as " men and brethren;" and therefore, adopting your mode of ratiocination, the men were different from the brethren. The apostle Paul * " speaks of pastors and teachers, " and of course, upon the same principles, he thus distinguishes two orders of ministers. It happens, however, that your sophistry can be refuted out of the mouth of Cranmer himself, for the Reformer frequently mentions " priests or bishops. " You do not seem to be aware that he was one of the thirteen prelates who subscribed this declaration—" In the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions hi orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bishojjs. " f Again Cranmer says, " Bishops and priests were at one time, and were no two things, but both one office in the beginning of Christ's religion. " When speaking of this latter declaration you say — " To it I can readily subscribe, for I believe that in the be • ginning of Christ's religion bishops and pres- byters were no two things, but that in the in- fancy of the church the same men who were to exercise the episcopal duties, when the state of the church required it, also officiated as pres- byters. "J I must observe that you here sub- scribe only the one half of Cranmer's declara- tion, and that you quietly evade the more im- * Ephesians, iv, 11. + I stated inadvertently in ' Presbyterianism Defend- ed ' (p. 57,) that this document was subscribed in the time of Edward VI. The truth is, that it was signed before May, 1538, that is about nine years prior to the death of Henry VIII. (Burnet's History of Reform, vol. i, p. 365.) I perceive that you copy my mistake, and give to the do. cument the false date. (Letters p. 171.) Shorily after- wards, (Letters, p. 17?,) you assert that it was drawn up several years be/ore the Reformation '. But under the year 1538, Burnet says that Cranmer " did now rejoice that he saw this day of Reformation, which he concluded was now risen in England, since the light of God's word did shine over it without any clou'l." (Hist, of Reform, vol. i, p- 249.) You allege also tbat the document in question is called the 'Mishaps' book.'' (Letters, p. 172.) Here again you are totally mistaken. The original is given by Burnet, (Hist, of Reform, vol, p 321.) and is a tract of three pages in length. 7 he work called the Bishops' Book appeared in 1536. (Neal, vol. i, p. 19.) There is another work, sometimes called the' Bishops' Book,' but more commonly the ' King's Book.' It was drawn up, according to Burnet, in the year 1540. (Hist, of Reform, voi. i, p. 286.) It may perhaps be better known to you by the title of 'The Erudition of a Chris- tian man.' i Letters, p. 169. CRANMER PARTIAL TO PRESBYTERIANISM. 55 porlant section. * You dare not annex your signature to the whole, for you know that the latter part of the statement is thoroughly pres- byterian. If you say that bishops and priests were both one office in the beginning of Christ's religion, the controversy is at an end. After professing your willingness to subscribe, and yet failing in the attempt, you seem to have been visited by some scruples of conscience. You accordingly suggest that the words of Cranmer are " somewhat ambiguous in their import, considered by themselves." I con- sider them exceedingly perspicuous, for after putting them to the torture, you have not been able to wring from them any thing like a recantation. The other passage quo- ted above, in which he speaks of two orders of ecclesiastical persons, is equally decisive. You try to darken the meaning of this decla- ration by a number of mysterious explanations ; but after drawing some unintelligible distinc- tions, you make it to imply that bishops and priests have "a oneness in ecclesiastical rank." When referring to this opinion of Cranmer, you allege that it is not favourable to my cause, for you argue that " a system of two orders cannot be preshyterianism ; nor the man who supports it inclined to the equality principle." You tell me that, according to the statement of my friend Mr. M'Clure,allthe pas- tors of our church are of one order and of equal authority. And here you are disposed to be merry, for you impute to me " the very drol- lest logic in the world." I acknowledge that I can relish a little pleasantry myself, and if you are amused with my argument, I do not see why I should not rejoice more abundantly. You say that there should be three orders in the church — Cranmer affirmed that there should be only two ; and surely when he re- duced the prelates to the level of the presby- ters, he discovered something very like an inclination to presbyterianism. I believe that an inference of this kind would be at once ad- mitted by the professors of the college of Bel- fast ; but I suspect that a dose of such logic, mixed vip with the presbyterianism of Cran- mer, Latimer, and Hooper, would be swallow- * Surely if you hail consulted the originals, you would have avoided at least some of the many awkward blun- ders you have made in this ease. You say, p. 169 — "the very next question for consideration (No. 10), draws the distinction between bishops and presbyters ; ' as for making, that is to say, ordaining and conse- crating of priests, it specially belongeth to the office of a bishop, as far as can be shown by Scripture or any example from the beginning.'' The question to which Cranmer gives Hie answer noticed in the testis itself No. in. ThenextquestionNo.il is — " whether a bi- shop bath authority to make a priest by the Scripture or no? and whether any other but only a bishop may make a priest? '' The assembled bishops and doctors gave their answers separately. Cranmer was of opinion that christian princes and governors could make priests, and " the people also by their election," as well as the bishops j and he concludes by saying that " the people, before Christian princes were, commonly did elect their bishops and priests " What you give' in inverted commas a^ the question propounded, is not a question "I nil, and has no connexion with the statements of Cranmer. It is part nf the answer given by a Dr. Redmayn, the tenth who replied. What strange con- fusion and inaccuracy .' ed with uncommon difficulty by the Puseyite lecturers of Dublin and Oxford. There' is, in fact, no substantial difference between the statement of Mr. M'Clure and that of the archbishop. When Mr. M'Clure says that pastors are of one order, he means that teach- ing presbyters have no ecclesiastical su- periors ; but he does not deny that there is a lower order of office-bearers in the church, distinguished in the New Testament by the designation of deacons. Bishop Stillingfleet speaks very candidly respecting the views of Cranmer. Referring to his opinions, he says, " Thus we see, by the testimony chiefly of him who was instrumental in our Reformation, that he owned not Episcopacy as a distinct order from Presbytery of divine riyht, but only as a prudent constitution of the civil magis- trate for the better governing of Ihe church."* I shall now present you with a few additional facts bearing upon the same subject. Hooper, in a letter dated February 8, 1550, informs Bullinger that " the Archbishop of Canter- bury, (Cranmer), the bishops of Rochester, Ely, St. David's, Lincoln, and Bath, were sincerely bent on advancing the purity of doctrine, agreeing in all things with the Hel- vetic churches." I need not tell you that the Helvetic churches were presbyterian. " The title of bishop," says M'Crie, " was very gene- rally disused in common speech during the reign of Edward VI, and that of superinten- dent substituted in its place. Ponet, bishop of Winchester, vindicated this practice, in an answer which he published to a popish wri- ter.-f- It is a fact well worthy your conside- ration, that in the " Articles agreed upon by the bishops and other learned men in the con- vocation held at London in the year 1552," where Cranmer was present, there is not a single sentence respecting the distinction between bi- shops and priests.* Does not this circumstance show pretty clearly the views of the English Reformers at that period? It is stated also that John a Lasco, in the year 1550, came into England with his congregation at the request of Cranmer, and procured from the govern- ment a place of worship in London. He was of the sentiments of the Swiss church, that is presbyterian, and was unfriendly to the Eng- lish ceremonies. I shall now state, in the words of a Lasco himself, the design contem- plated by his settlement in England. In 1555, he published a work, < De Ordinatione Eccle- siarum peregrinarum in Anglia,' which he de- dicated to Sigismond, king of Poland. In the dedication he says, " When I was called by that king, (Edward VI), and when certain laws of the country stood in the way, so that the public rites of divine worship used under popery could not immediately be purged out, which the king himself desired ; and when I was earnest for the foreign churches, it was at psngth his pleasure that the public rites of the * Irenicum, Part ii, eh. viii. + Lite of Knox, p. 4-28, 1st ed. t Sen these Articles lu Burnet'* Hist, of the Reform, vol. ii, pp. 209—220. 56 THE SYNOD OF DORT. English churches should be reformed by de- grees, as far as could be got done by the laws of the country ; but that strangers, who were not strictly bound to these laws in this matter, should have churches granted unto them, in which they should freely regulate all things wholly according to apostolical doctrine and practice, without any regard to the rites of the country; that by this means the English churches also might be excited to embrace the apostolical purity, by the unanimous consent of all the states of the kingdom. Of this pro- ject, the king himself, from his great piety, was both the chief author and the defender. For, although it was almost universally accep- table to the king's council, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, (Cranmer), promoted it with all his might, there were not wanting some who took it ill, aiifl would have opposed it, had not his majesty checked them by his authority and the reasons which he adduced for the design." I should think that by this time you have evi- dence sufficient to convince you that Cranmer had an inclination to presbyterian principles. I come now to what you call my " last stay, " the bishop of Llandaff. Props are only used where houses are likely to fall, but as the pres- byterian system is compactly built together it does not require such supports. Your church, however, is top heavy — it is bowed down under the disproportionate weight of the prelates and their revenues, and if you would expect it to stand, I would recommend you to take down the upper story — to provide the bishops with accommodation in the next floor — to inscribe over the door of your establishment — " If any will not work, neither shall he eat " — and to en- courage all who are able and willing to exert themselves for the preservation of the edifice, by giving them their fair share of the episcopal revenues. Had the Dutch church been shack- led by English prelacy, how could she have arrested the progress of Arminianism ? Had she been supported only by such " stays " as the bishop of Llandaff, she might have long since been laid in ruins. In your account of the synod of Dort, you triumphantly prove that your powers as a historian are only equalled by your genius as a chronologist and an anti- quary. " The low countries, " you say, " at that period were suffering, and that intensely, from the consequence of the parity among mini- sters. "* Do you not know that the synod of Dort was convened, not to determine a ques- tion of ecclesiastical precedency, but to cb,eck the spread of doctrinal error ? It was called to pronounce a judgment in the controversy be- tween the Arminians and the Calvinists. " The Church of England, " you say again, "did that which the nation of England has often done since, carried its prowess upon the continent to adjust differences which w r ere too mighty for home authority, and to restore peace by the commanding influence of its intervention. " You seem to forget that the continental divines have placed the Church of England under im- * Letters, p. 174. perishable obligations. Are you not aware that Cranmer and his colleagues owed much of their spiritual information to the foreign pres- byterians; and that some of them, such as Bucer and Martyr, were specially invited to settle in England to assist in the reformation of your establishment ? You should know that the bishop of Llandaff and his companions were not the only deputies, unconnected with the Church of Holland, who were invited to the synod of Dort. There were besides divines from the Palatinate, Hessia, Switzerland, Bre- men, Embden, Nassau, and Wetteravia. Had the States General sent no invitation into Eng- land, it might have been said that your church was treated disrespectfully by being thus alto- gether overlooked ; but do you Ihink that your influence would be of the slightest use in the determination of a controversy between Ar minians and Calvinists ? Your own church is now, and has long been, tainted to the very core with the poison of Arrninianism. The greater number of your bishops are infected, and yet you have no power to call a synod that you may arraign them at your bar and condemn them for heretical pravity. The English depu- ties who attended the synod of Dort were little better than mere puppets, inasmuch as they were guided in all their movements by the dictation of their royal master. So far as they were concerned, the whole affair was a piece of state policy, for they were commanded by king James to support Calvinism, though he himself was ever afterwards distinguished by his rank and intolerant Arminianism. You lay great stress upon the circumstance, that in the 145th Session of the synod, the bishop of Llandaff entered his protest against the ecclesiastical views of the Belgic churches. As you profess always to quote from the " ori- ginals, " you would have greatly obliged me by stating where he entered his protest. I can inform you that it is not to be found in the Acts of the Synod of Dort. I have diligently examined the portly volume in which the Acts are contained, but no such protest is forthcoming. I have looked under the head of the 145th Session, but though the assent of the British theologians to the Belgic Confes- sion is recorded, there is no trace of your fa- mous manifesto. I observe that even the Remonstrants enjoyed the liberty of entering protests ; and I must therefore conclude that, had the Right Rev. Dr. Carlton been disposed to take the step which you ascribe to him, he would have been freely permitted. You need not think it strange, if, to a document which never existed, " no reply whatever was put in." I am indeed disposed to think, that, on the oc- casion in question, the bishop of Llandaff verbally expressed his dissent from that part of the Belgic confession which related to the equality of pastors ; * and had he failed to do so, he would have been placed in a very strange * You have been misled in this case, liy trusting to second-hand information. The impartial Hales, who was at Dort the sreaterpart of the time of the Synod, sent to the British ambassador at the Hague, reg'i- SYNOD OF DORT. 57 position. For, when the matter was mooted, how could lie act otherwise ? Was he not ob- liged, for the sake of consistency, to dissent from a creed by which he himself was virtually condemned as an usurper ? The Dutch divines only acted with becoming courtesy if they per- mitted his observations to pass in silence. I suspect that your information on the subject has been derived either directly or indirectly from a book afterwards published by the bi- shop ; for, in the work to which I allude, he speaks with great magniloquence of his ap- pearance in the synod. He appears to have been somewhat given to boasting ; and I must candidly tell you, that I do not place implicit reliance on his statements. I do not suppose that any challenge from the bishop of Llan- daff would have spread dismay throughout the synod, for as a public speaker he seems to have been better fitted to excite the compassion than the terror of the divines of Holland. In a Re- monstrant work written about that period, en- titled ' Nullityten der Nationalen Synod] ge- houden binnen Dordrecht,' it is alleged, " that when he had not his speech written out before his eyes, he was not even able to speak in Latin without hesitation, or without the aid and prompting of his doctors."* He was far infe- rior, in point of erudition, to many of the Dutch clergy; and it appears from the above state- ment that he was but ill-qualified to maintain a viva voce discussion in a dead language. Gisbert Voetius, and many other most learned and zealous presbyterians, sat in the Synod of Dort; and do you not think that the bishop of Llandaff, who could with difficulty communi- nicatc his thoughts in Latin, would have been speedily obliged to call for quarter, had he been so imprudent as to enter into a controversy with such theological giants? You allege that I draw "a lame and impo- tent conclusion," when I say that the English deputies, by their attendance at the Synod of Dort, acknowledged the validity of presbyterian ordination. Your dialectics are, I confess, somewhat different from mine ; for I cannot yet discover the unsoundness of my inference. The payment of rent by a tenant is considered as an acknowledgment of the title of the land- lord, and certainly the English divines at Dort still more fully acknowledged the ministerial title of the Dutch clergy. The bishop of Llandaff attended at Dort as a member of an ecclesiastical convention — he took an oath by lar accounts of the proceedings, and authentic ex. tracts from the Latin minutes, as he could obtain copies from the clerks. The following txtract from the minutesof the 145 tb session abundantlycontirms the statement In the text. After the declaration of the English divines, expressing their concurrence in the'doctrinal articles, Is given, the minute pro- ceeds thus — " monent de tribal capitibus quae or- dinem ecclesiasticum spectant se nullum ferre sen- tentiam, sed interim putare se regimen ecclesiarum suarum esse institutionis apostolicae. Kplscopns autem Landavensis oratione breviuima contra ilia tria praedicta capita perorabat ; contendebatque in Ecclesia neque in Apostolorum temporibus Deque postea, unquam fuissi- nitiiistrorum ac -qiialitatem ."— Hales' Golden Remains, London, Hvo, p. 644. * Part i.ehap. vli, p. CO. 1! which he pledged himself to act righteously — according to the terms of the oath he declared the court to be a " Synod" of the church of Christ — he did not even occupy the chair, for he submitted to the government of a presbyterian moderator — he voted with the rest of the depu- ties ; and he waited upon the religious servi- ces conducted by ministers of the Dutch com- munion. He did all this, you must observe, not as a private individual, but as a public, re- presentative of the Church of England. These facts surely afford evidence that he acknow- ledged those with whom he acted as invested with the ministerial commission. But as you seem determined to close your eyes against the light, I will not expose you to the temptation of denying even so plain an inference. The English deputies have themselves admitted what you — blinded by party zeal— have de- nounced as a lame and impotent conclusion. Their acknowledgment stands recorded among the acts of the synod. In the Twenty-ninth Session we have the opinion of the divines of Great Britain respecting what is called the pro- test and two exceptions of the Remonstrants. In that document they acknowledge the assem- bly as " a Synod of lawful pastors," and they declare that the professors delegated by the States, and the pastors deputed by their own provincial Synods, represent the whole body of the Belgic church " by lawful ordination and authority" (ordinatione et auctoritate legiti- ma).* Surely such a rebuff from your friends should teach you for the future to express your sentiments with a little more modesty. Towards the conclusion of your observations on the Synod of Dort, you introduce me to bishop Hall, bearing " in his hand his treatise on the divine right of Episcopacy." I beg to say that I shall receive the present as a hope- ful omen of the reformation of your church. The reasoning of that work was felt to be so potent, that the hierarchy fell shortly after its publication. I only regret that the good bishop himself was almost buried in the ruins; for though I cannot sympathize with him in his ec- clesiastical attachments, I greatly revere the author of the ' Contemplations' as a pious, an evangelical, and a delightful writer. I may mention here that, prior to the period in question, the validity of presbyterian ordi- nation was generally acknowledged by the di- vines of the Church of England. In proof of this I shall present you with an extract from N^l's history of the Puritans. " The new Archbishop of York," says Neal, " resolved to visit his whole province, and to begin with Dur- ham, where Dean Whittingham was the prin- cipal man under the bishop; he was a divine of great learning and of long standing in the church, but not ordained according to the form of the English service book. The accusation against him was branched out into thirty-five : articles, and forty nine interrogatories, the chief whereof was his Genera ordination. The dean instead of answering the charge, stood by the rights of the church of Durham, and denied * Acta Synodi etc., p. 1:14, Hanovise, 1620. 58 PRESBYTERIAN ORDINATION.— GROTIUS AND LE CLERC. the archbishop's power of visitation, upon which his Grace was pleased to excommunicate him ; hut ^liitthigham appealed to the queen (Eliza- beth), who directed a commission to the arch- bishop, to the lord-president of the council in the north, and to the dean of York, to hear and determine the validity of his ordination, and to inquire into the other misdemeanours con- tained in the articles. The president of the north was a favourer of the Puritans, and Dr. Hutton, Dean of York, was of Whittingham's principles, and boldly averred "that the dean was ordained in a better sort, than even the arch- il i shop himself," so that the commission came to nothing. But Sandys, (the archbishop,) vexed at the disappointments, and at the call- ing in question his right of visitation, obtained another commission directed to himself, the bishop of Durham, the lord-president, the chancellor of the diocess, and some others whom he could depend upon, to visit the church of Durham. The chief design was to deprive ^Vhittingham as a layman : when the dean ap- peared before the commissioners, he produced a certificate, under the hands of eight persons, for the manner of his ordination, in these words : " It pleased God, by the suffrages of the whole congregation, (at Geneva,) orderly to choose Mr. W. Whittingham, into the office of preaching the word of God and ministering the Sacraments; and he was admitted minister, and so published with other such ceremonies as here are used and accustomed."* It was objected that here was no mention of a bishop or superintendent, nor of any external so- lemnities, nor so much as of imposition of hands. The dean replied, there was mention in general of the ceremonies of that church, and he was able to prove his vocation to be the same as all the ministers of Geneva had ; up- on which the lord-president rose up and said, that he could not in conscience agree to de- prive him for that cause only ; for, says he, it will be ill taken by all the godly and learned, both at home and abroad, that we should allow of the popish massing priests in our ministry, and disallow of ministers made in a reformed church : whereupon the commission was ad- journed sine die. These proceedings of the archbishop against the dean were invidious, and lost him his esteem both in city and coun- try. The calling his ordination in question was expressly contrary to the Statute 13 of Elizabeth, by which, says Mr. Strype, the^ir- dination of foreign reformed churches was de- clared valid; and those that had no other orders were made of like capacity with others to enjoy any place of ministry within England."f Here you see that the validity of presbyterian ordi- nation was not only admitted by the English church, but also established by act of parlia- ment. SECT. VII GROTIUS, LE CLERC, CALVIN, AND BEZA. To give some eclat to your system, you ad- * Strype's Ann. vol. ii, p. 523. + Hist, of Puritans, vol. i, pp. 230, 237. duce a number of quotations from the works of continental writers. Names, you know, can- not decide the question ; and if we are merely to recount the men of note who have appeared on either side, we may maintain an endless war of authorities. I perceive that Grotius is your favourite witness ; for you quote him far more frequently than any other author. You might as well adduce the opinion of Lord Brougham. I do not suppose that the decision of the ex-chancellor upon a theological point would he greatly respected by an assembly of divines. It is in fact mere trifling to speak of Grotius as a presbyterian. It is plain, from the statements of his friends, that had not worldly motives interfered, he would have openly joined the communion of the Church of England.* Grotius indeed was a distinguished statesman — he was possessed of much learn- ing, and gifted with a lofty genius ; but his opi- nion upon a theological question is of very fit- tie value. He was considered as a heretic by the Dutch church; and his writings are re- plete with Pelagian errors. You elsewhere pro- claim that your motto is, " No peace with Rome ;" and it is therefore somewhat strange that you cling so closely to Grotius, who at one time actually contemplated a junction with the Man of Sin. Le Clerc is a writer of the same school ; and I shall accordingly dismiss him without further ceremony.f And here I shall mention a fact connected with the history of the Dutch remonstrants, of which you ought not to be ignorant. " As the leading men among the Arminians," says Mosheim, " are peculiarly ambitions of maintaining their cor- respondence and fraternal intercourse with the Church of England, and leave no circumstance unimproved that may tend to confirm this union, so they discover upon all occasions their appro- bation of the episcopal form of ecclesiastical government, and profess to regard it as most ancient, as truly sacred, and as superior to all other institutions of church polity."j The Dutch presbyterians have long since con- demned these sly and inconsistent heretics : but as you seem to regard them with fraternal affection, you should at once send them a pre- late, to confer upon them the blessing of apos- tolical succession. I might now show that others of your wit- nesses, such as Doddridge and Zanchius, ex- pressly testify against you. According to the very quotations you adduce from them, episco- pacy cannot be of apostolic origin. Melancthon has elsewhere acknowledged,§ that all pastors * See certain documents appended to his Truth of the Christian Heligion, by l.e Clerc, p. 335. + You speak of Le Clerc as " a presbyterian divine of the church of Holland.'''' (Letters, p. 176.) You are here quite mistaken. You might as well speak of the liev. Dr. Montgomery, of Belfast, as a divine of the Sy- nod of Ulster. % F.ccl. Hist. Cent, xvii, sect, ii, part ii, chap. iii. ? The deliberate judgment of Luther, Melancthon, and the other great reformers of Germany, upon the subject in dispute, may be ascertained from the Articles of Smalkald, where it is expressly declared, that by divine right, " there is no difference between a bishop and a presbyter, but that every pastor is a bishop." Melancthon in his tractate " De potestate et primatu MELANCTHON, LUTHER, AND CALVIN. &<> were originally equal; and the passage you bring forward, first in your sermons, and a second time in your letters, only proves that he was a very timorous man, and that he was not prepared to carry out his own principles. He foolishly imagined that the disorders of the church would be removed by the help of a human institution. In the Apology from which you quote, he makes concessions to the papists, which have exposed him to great and deserved censure. I shall, however, draw this part of my letter to a close, by an examination of the sentiments of Calvin and Beza. I here enter upon a most unpleasant and humiliating task ; but in justice to my subject, I cannot pass it by in silence. You have challenged me to the scrutiny; and I must respond to your call. And here I cannot but declare, that your cur- tailed quotation from the fourth book of the Institutes of Calvin is a sad specimen of liter- ary garbling. I know, sir, that you are not the original transgressor ; for this self-same mutilated extract has been transmitted as a kind of heir-loom hi the works of episcopalian advocates, from generation to generation. When you composed your ' Sermons on the Church,' you seem to have been an utter stranger to the works of Calvin ; and I doubt not but that you gave the extract as you found it in some of your " popular furnishing treatises." Had you in your ' Letters' freely acknowledged your mistake, I could have permitted the matter to sink into oblivion ; but you have ventured to assume the attitude of defence ; and you have therefore placed yourself beyond the pale of compassion. You now profess* to furnish " the entire passage, unsuppressed, uncurtail- ed ; " and yet, in the form in which you give it, f the quotation is still miserably maimed. You remind me of a child when presented with a dose of medicine. In order to avoid a whip- ping, he may express his willingness to receive it ; but when the nauseous draught is actually tasted, he can only be induced to swallow the Papae," after quoting the well-known passage from Je- rome, goes on to say — " therefore Jerome teaches that the grades of bishop anil presbyter or pastor, have been distinguished by human authority. And the case itself speaks thus, because their power is the same, as I have already said. But one thing afterwards made a dill'er- ence between bishops and pastors, viz., ordination ; be- cause it was appointed that one bishop should ordain ministers in several churches. But as the grades of bi- shop and pastor are not different by divine right, it is m«- ni/'ist that ordination performed by a pastor in his own church is sanctioned by divine authority." Luther, in his treatise " Adversus falso noininatum Ordiucm Fpis- coporum," thus speaks when commenting on I Pet. v. I—" Here you see that Peter, in the same manner as Paul had dune, uses the terms presbyter and bishop to signify the. same thing. He represents those as bishops who teach the people, and preach the word ol God ; and he makes them all of equal power, and forbids them to conduct themselves as if they were lords, or to indulge a spirit of domination over their Hocks. He calls him- self a. fellow-presbyter, plainly teaching by this expres- sion, that alt parish ministers and bishops of cities were of equal authority among themselves ; that in what per- tained to the office of bishop, no one could claim ami superiority over another; and that he was their fellow- presbyter, having no more power in his own city than others had in theirs, or than every one of them had in his own congregation." * Letters, p. ISO. + Letters, p. 17. thority, — that matters of a more public and important nature were to be submitted to the judgment of an assembly or synod, composed of elders chosen as deputies, by the churches of a whole province or district ; and that all affairs of such extensive influence and high moment as concerned the welfare of the sa- cred community in general, should be exa- mined and decided, as in times of old, by a general assembly of the whole church. This form of ecclesiastical government the church of Geneva adopted for itself, and left no en- treaties or methods of persuasion unemployed that might recommend it to the other reform- ed churches, with whom they lived in frater- nal communion. But it tvas obstinately re- jected by the English clergy." * Even your own Hooker styles Calvin "an enemy unto re- giment by bishops,"f and bears testimony to the zeal with which he endeavoured to propogate his views of ecclesiastical polity. " His writings," saith he, " published after the question about that discipline was once begun, omit not any the least occasion of extolling the use and singular necessity thereof."\ You may thus sec that had you exactly reversed your assertions, you would have simply told the truth. Y'ou seem to have taken your ideas upon this subject from a sermon preached some time since by Dr. Boyton, in Dublin, at the College chapel, as reported in the news- papers. In as far as Cabin is concerned, I do not hesitate to designate the statement as a downright calumny. I know that it - is equally untrue as applied to the other great reformers of Geneva. Calvin, sir, was not the man either to be bribed by the gold of Rome, or to be affrighted by the terrors of popular commotion. You ought to have re- membered, that when the people of Geneva once refused to submit themselves fully to his discipline, he cast himself penniless on the world, and that he ministered for a season to another congregation, which was more cor- dially disposed to acknowledge the authority of his Master. When ordered to leave Ge- neva within two days, because he refused to administer the Lord's Supper to the scanda- lously profane, the reformer exclaimed, in the lofty spirit of a Christian martyr, — " Cer- tainly, had I been in the service of men, this would have been a bad reward ; but it is well that I have served Him who never fails to re- pay his servants whatsoever he has once pro- mised.'^ And it was not until the people of Geneva had shown a disposition to submit to his arrangements, and until he was most earnestly entreated to resume his duties in the congregation, that he could be prevailed on to return to them. And this is the man that you represent as a trimmer and a time-server! Ah ! sir, it is a fearful thing to bear false witness against those who have passed through great tribulation, and who have washed their robes, * P.cc. Hist. cent, xvi, part ii, sect, iii, chap. ii. + Eccles. I'ol. Book, vii, vol. ii, p. 200. Ed. London, I8i.5. 1 Preface to the Eccles. Polity. i Life, by Tliepdore I'.iv.i. CALVIN. til and liiudu them white in tho blood of tho Lamb. In your letter you introduce nn ex- tract from Calvin, which you seem to regard as in favour of your hierarchy. Why did yon mistranslate the passage, and uhy did you suppress a most, important clause in the wry middle of the sentence f I shall furnish the entire statement as it came from the pen of Calvin. " If," said he, " they present to us such a hierarchy, in which bishops may have sneh a precedence that they may not refuse to be subject, unto L'brisf, that they may depend on him, and be referred to him as their only head ; in which they may cultivate among themselves such a brotherly fellowship, as that their only bond of union be bis truth; then surely, if any be found who do not reverence it, and submit to it with the utmost obedience, I confess that there is no anathema of which they are not worthy."* The language of Cal- vin is here marked by the utmost caution. I myself can subscribe to every word of it. I believe that bishops having such a precedence as may be compatible with the truth of Christ, and maintaining not such a lordly ascendency, but such a brotherly fellowship, as that the bond of their union may be the truth of Christ, are in fact nothing more than presbyterian ministers. The Reformer speaks of bishops, and you infer that he must mean prelates ,• but the whole structure of the sentence shows that the hierarchy which he contemplates is merely scriptural episcopacy, or apostolic presbyte- rianism. And now that you may have some idea of the views of Calvin upon the subject of pre- lacy, I shall present you with a few passages from his commentaries. In his commentary on Acts, xx,28,he says — " Concerning the word bishop it is briefly to be observed, that all the Ephesian presbyters are indiscriminately so called by Paul ; whence we conclude, that according to scriptural use, bishops in no respect differ from presbyters ; but by corruption and abuse it came to pass, that those who presided in every city began to be called bishops. I say abuse, not because it may be an evil, that some one in every con- sistory should have precedence, but because the boldness with which men hesitate not to change the language of the Holy Spirit, by * Talem nobis hierarrhiaro si exhibeant ; in qua sic tmineant episcopi, ut Chrislo subesse non recusent; ut ab illo, tanquam unico capite, pendcaut, ct ad ipsum referantur ; in qua sic inter se Iratemam societatem colant, ut non alio noclo, quam ejus veritate, sint colli- gati ; turn vero nullo non anathemate dignos fatear, siqui erunt, qui non earn reverentur, summaqne obedi. entia obscrvent. (I)e Necess. Reform. Eccl.) I subjoin your version verbatim et literatim. " Let them present to us such a hierarchy, in which bishops shall so rule as that they reluse not to submit themselves to Christ, as that they depend on him as their only head, ^v. ( ! ) then surely they that will not reverently and with the greatest obedience submit themselves to that hier- archy, if any such there should be, I confess, that there is no anathema of which they are not worthy." — (Let- ters, p. 1H1.) By a hierarchy Calvin did not mean pre- lacy. This is evident from the fact, that in his Insti- tutes, Book iv, chap, v, he speaks of " that hierarchy or sjiiritual government" established in the church by the apostles, when he is unquestionably referring to pres- hyteriaiiism. twisting scriptural terms to their own usage, is by no means to be tolerated."* Again, in his commentary on Philippians i, 1, he says, — "Hence it may be inferred, that the term bishop is common to all ministers of the word ; as he (Paul) assigns several bishops to one church. Bishop and pastor are there- fore synonymous. And this is one of the pas- sages cited to prove it by Jerome, in the Epis- tle to Evagrius, and in the exposition of the Epistle to Titus. Afterwards the usage be- came prevalent, that he whom the presbyters of each church appointed to preside over their own consistory, should alone be called bishop. This, however, has arisen front human custom ; it is not at all supported by the authority of Scripture. I confess, indeed, that the nature and habits of men are such, that order could not be preserved among the ministers of the word, unless one were to preside over the rest. I speak here of single churches, not of entire provinces, much less of the whole world. But though we ought not to contend about words, yet it would be better, in our phraseo- logy, to follow the authority of the Holy Spirit, than to change for the worse forms of expres- sion established by him. For from the cor- rupt signification of the word, this evil has followed, that tinder the pretence of this neiv designation, one has usurped authority over the others, as if all the presbyters were not col- leayues called to the same function." f Again, Calvin in his Commentory on Titus i, 7, thus speaks : " This passage expressly teaches that there is no difference between presbyter and bishop, since he now indiscri- minately designates by the second term those whom he previously called presbyters. Nay, pursuing the same subject, he uses both names indifferently in the same sense, as Jerome has observed both in this place and in the Epistle to Evagrius. And here it is evident that too much deference has been paid to human de- cisions, since the phraseology of the Holy Spirit has been excluded, and a usage arbi- trarily introduced by men has become preva- lent. I am not dissatisfied with the custom received from the earliest times of the church, that each consistory of bishops should have some one Moderator ; but that an official title, which God had given to all in common, should be transferred to one alone, to the detriment of the rest, is both unjust and absurd. Besides, to pervert the language of the Holy Spirit so that the same words have with us another sig- nification than he designed, partakes loo much of profane boldness."^ You affirm, as we have seen, that " the re- formers were all secretly disposed to episcopacy." By what means you obtained possession of the secret I cannot divine. It is certain that their acts and their writings speak a very different language. I am aware indeed that the Eng- lish prelatists, with whom some of them main- tained a correspondence, used the most insidi- * Comment. Edit. Tholuck, vol. iff, p. 401. t Comment. Tholurk, vol. vi, p. K>7. X Comment. Thcluck, vol. vi,p.4GG- 62 BEZA. oiis arts in ardor to draw from them conces- sions in favour of your system, and I know that expressions of a merely complimentary nature which they used, and which any pres- bvterian might still employ under the same circumstances, have been produced as proofs that they countenanced your hierarchy. "After the bishops had resolved," says Dr. M'Crie, " to rest satisfied with the establishment which they had obtained, and felt themselves dis- turbed by the complaints of the puritans, as they were afterwards called, they endeavoured to engage the foreign divines on their side; and having, by partial representations, and through the respect entertained for the f/ovcrn- ment of England, obtained letters from them somewhat favourable to their views, they em- ployed these to hear down such as pleaded for a more pure reformation. "* But the system of ecclesiastical polity which the foreign divines themselves voluntarily adopted — the Confes- sions of Faith which they prepared — and the sentiments which they deliberately propounded in their published works — clearly prove that they utterly condemned the arrangements of the Church of England. You may see from the preceding extracts with what complacency the most illustrious of all the Reformers contempla- ted the usurped titles and the despotic power of English episcopacy. As his experience in- creased, his dislike to any thing bearing the semblance of prelatical authority seems to have assumed even a more determined character. During his life he acted as constant moderator of the presbytery of Geneva, but it is said that at his latter end he advised his colleagues to beware for the future of such an arrangement, " When he was at the point of death, " says Mosheim, " he advised the clergy not to give a successor, and proved to them evidently the dangerous consequences of entrusting with any one man, during life, a place of such high authority. After him, therefore, the place of president ceased to be perpetual, "-f- I shall now, sir, take up Beza. In your letter you profess to quote from him as fol- lows : — " The Church of England, after the Reformation, was supported and stood by the authority of archbishops and bishops, of which order she had many, not only famous martyrs, but excellent doctors and pastors, and may she for ever enjoy that singular blessing of God upon her. "J I would be disposed to ask you, if you have actually seen and examined the work from which you profess to take this ex- tract; but as you declare that you quote from "the originals," the question cannot be enter- tained. About two hundred years ago this passage was pressed into the service of your party, and since, it has been very frequently adduced as a witness for prelacy. Such a barefaced attempt at literary imposition has but few parallels. Are you aware that the book from which you quote is a very able and spirited defence of presbytcrianism ? Had- * Life of Knox. p. 431, 1st Edition. + Eco. Hist. Cent, xvi, sect, iii, part, ii, chap, ii, note. % Letters, p. 178. rian Saravia had composed a treatise in sup- port of the hierarchy, and Beza in his volume nobly demolished Saravia's arguments. And yet you refer to Beza as a friend ; and you ad- duce a passage from this very work as an un- doubted proof that he was opposed to eccle- siastical parity ! In the Deny discourses, the bishops of ihe Church of Eugland are occasion- ally noticed most respectfully, and it may be that some future champion of the hierarchy will be found culling quotations in its favour from ' Presbyterianism Defended. ' You have, however, not only ventured to appeal to a volume which testifies against you from begin- ning to end, but yon have actually suppressed the real evidence of the witness. If you take your quotations from the originals, would not honesty require that you should give them as you find them ? In this, as in former cases, your translation is at fault, and you leave out a clause in the very middle of the sentence which Beza introduced expressly for the pur- pose of guarding against misapprehension. I shall now set before you the passage itself to- gether with the context, and I shall subjoin the original, that you may peruse it at your con- venience. " Nay, among so many churches that have been by God's blessing reformed in our times, which, I pray, can you point out to me, that has been rescued from the tyranny of Antichrist, by those her bishops, archbishops, primates, metropolitans ? I find indeed that in Germany two archbishops of Cologne made the attempt, but with so little success that they lost their office besides in the straggle. But if they remain in the reformed Anglican church, supported as she is by the authority of her bishops and archbishops, as it has been her lot in our memory to have men of that order not only distinguished martyrs of God, but also most excellent pastors and doctors, let her in- deed enjoy thatsingular kindness of God, which I pray may be perpetual unto her, of which matter we shall treat more fully at chap 25."* The words which you have suppressed and which I have distinguished by Italics at once determine the meaning of Beza. Why, sir, the singular kindness of God which the Re- former here acknowledges, is not the blessing of your hierarchy, but the blessing of that en- lightened piety by which many of the early English bishops were distinguished. He prays not that the arrangements of prelacy may be continued without alteration or reform, but that the singular benefit of well-instructed and de • voted pastors, ready to suffer death for their re- * liiimo inter tot ecclesias nostris temporibus, Dei beneficio, instauratas, quam tandem mihi ostenderis a suis illis Episcopis, Archiepiscopis, 1'rimatibns, Metro- politans, ab Antichrist! tyrannide assertam:' Duos ego quidera in Germania Arcliiepiscopos Colonieuses hoc tentasse cornpeiio, sed usque adeo iri'ito conatu,ut suo etiam Archiepiscopatu ideo exciderint. Quod si nunc Anglicana; Ecclesia; instaurata? suonini Episco- porum et Aroliiepiscoporum auctoritate aufi'ultee per- st;mt, (juemadmodum hoc illi nostra memoria conliyit, ut ejus ordinis homines non taiuuin insignes Dei martyres, sed eliam prrestantissimos l'astores ac Doctores hahue- rit; fruatur sane ista singular! Dei beneficentia, quse a tin am sit illi perpetaa: qua de re pluribus in caput •id. ayeinus. — Kespon. ad Sarav. p. HI. BEZA. 63 ligion, may remain to the Church of England throughout all generations. He speaks not of the system, but of the men. I, sir, heartily ac- cede to his acknowledgments, and join heartily in his prayer. In another part of this work, Beza speaks out very freely respecting some of the English bishops who lived at the time of the Refor- mation. Thus he says: "Those first foun- dations of a reformed church in England, in the times of Henry VIII, the English bishops did not certainly lay, but rather opposed with all their might."* At the conclusion of the pas- sage you have quoted, Beza refers us to his 2oth chapter, and I shall now present you with an extract from that portion of the treatise. Addressing Saravia, he there says, " Here I again refer you to those words of Nazianzen, already quoted by me, which stand thus in the Greek: 'Would that there were no prelacy, nor any preference of place and tyrannical law of precedence, that we might be known by vir- tue alone. But now the right and the left and the middle, and the higher and the lower, and the right of walking before and of walking side by side, have brought us into many collisions without a cause, and have pushed many into the ditch, and driven into the place of the goats, not only of those who are in subjection, but also of the pastors, who, though teachers of Israel, have been ignorant of these things ? 'f which passage I have already rendered in Latin, and I wish that it were again and again weighed by those who rightly condemn the abuse of that authority and desire its reforma- tion, but yet conceive that those grades are to be retained in the church, to whom I will then yield when they show me men absolutely free from all ambition, or a sure method of restrain- ing those who are ambitious."! Beza published a tractate upon the subject of prelacy, entitled ' De Triplici Episcopatu.' This work is extremely rare, and I have not been able to obtain a copy of it. I shall there- fore give an account of its subject-matter as I find it described in the Allure Damasccnum of the learned Calderwood. " The venerable presbyter, Theodore Beza, published a treatise concerning the Triple Episcopacy — the Divine, the Human, and the Satanic. He says that the Divine episcopacy appertains to those who by another peculiar name are called pastors, for all pastors in the sacred Scriptures are also called bishops. The Human episcopacy — that is, that which is introduced into the church by human prudence without the sanction of the express word of God— he defines to he a cer- tain power given to one particular pastor above his colleagues, limited notwithstanding by fixed canons, prepared as barriers against tyranny. Those who exercise this power arc called bi- shops, with respect to their co-presbyturs, and * Page 13, Edit. 1.592. + Na.-ianzen, from whom Hez.a takes this quotation, was a Father of the fourth century, and the instructor of Jerome. Neither the teacher nor the pupil held the divine right of prelacy. t Respon. ad Sarav. pp. 182, 183. all the clergy as being inspectors placed over the clergy. He describes the Satanic episco- pacy as propagated by the Human, and as ap- pertaining to those who have altogether separa- ted themselves from presbyteries, so that they have nothing in common with the presbyters, or they have altogether abolished presbyteries, and lay claim in behalf of themselves and I know not what officials to the whole ecclesias- tical administration, and especially election, de- position, and the right of which the churches have been deprived, so that not merely as su- periors but as despots they rule over the clergy, they assert temporal authority, they desire not only to interfere in, but to direct affairs of state, — contrary to conscience and all shame, they consume in luxury and pomp things ap- propriated to sacred uses." * In his reply to Hadrian Saravia, Beza refers to this publica- tion. The following extract testifies that Cal- derwood has given a faithful account of the original. " Let those who will," saith Beza, " go now and wonder that a triple episcopacy should be constituted by us ; one, namely that which is evidently Divine, constituted by the apostles, which we desire to be restored ; a second, Human, by which an order (or matter of arrangement) was imperceptibly changed into a grade (or distinct rank) which may truly he enjoyed by those who are persuaded that the right use of it can be renewed and maintained ; a third, oligarchical and tyrannical, nay even Satanic, which is both to be abominated in the manifestly antichristian despotism of Rome, and to be reformed from the word of God in the still remaining oligarchical domination of Episcopacy.' 'f Beza here denounces your hierarchy by r the epithet Satanic, and yet you quote him to prove that he was a supporter of prelacy ! I might produce many other testimonies from this Reformer equally decisive, but I suppose you deem farther proof unnecessary. I shall present you with only one other extract from a letter to John Knox. This extract is impor- tant not only because of its bearing on this con- troversy, but likewise on account of the good sense and the exhibition of sound principle by which it is otherwise characterized. " Blessed be the Lord our God," says Beza, " who has endued you my brother, as one called to the helm, and the other rowers and sub-rowers, with fnii- stancy and fortitude of mind. Great indeed is the gift of God that you have introduced into Scotland, at the- same time both pure religion, and good order, the bond by which it may be retained. Thus I pray and beseech you retain these two together, so that you may remember * Altare Pamascenum, p. 83, Edit. 1708. + Eant nunc et mirentur qui volcnt, triplicem a no. Ids Episcopatum constitui, unum videlicet plane divi- num ab apostolis constitution, quern restitui cupimus: alteram lniraamim, i|iio paulatim inutatus est ordo in gradum, quo sane fruantur qui rectum illius usum a se iustauiari et observari posse sibi persuadent: tertium oligarchicail) et tyrannicum.satanicum denique, turn in Romana manifesto Antichristiaua tyrannide, abomin. andum, turn in ea, quas usquam superest oligarchies Episcopal! dominatione, ex Dei verbo corrigendum. Kespon.ad Sarav. p. 177. 64 BEZA.— -CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. always that the onecannotlong remain after the other is lost. This at least we are taughl liotli by tlie nature of things, tor who can expect that laws will be duly observed unless guardians and defenders of them be appointed, and by ex- perience, the preceptress even of fools, in the instances of those nations to whom it is certain that now chiefly on account of this error, which the people will not suffer to be corrected, the gospel is preached in judgment rather than mercy. I except the few elect of God. But I wish you, dear Knox, and the other brethren, to bear this also in mind, which is even now passing before our very eyes, that as the bi- shops begat the papacy, so the pseudo-bishops, the relics of the papacy, will briny infidelity into the world. This pestilence let all avoid who wish the safety of the church, and since you have succeeded in banishing it from Scot- land, never, I pray you, admit it again, how- ever it may Hatter you with the specious pre- text of promoting unity, which deceived many of the ancients, even the best of them."* In a note attached to my discourse, \ I dropped a hint, that were I to cross-examine some of your authorities, 1 might overwhelm you with confusion. I did not then deem it necessary to go into the investigation, as the illustration of my subject did not necessarily require your exposure : I therefore spared your feelings, and dismissed you with a gentle caution. But you have been so fool-hardy as to remind me of my threat,! and you have thus provoked me to the ungracious task of proceeding sternly with its execution. You should have remembered that the Scottish crest is a thistle, and that the motto appended to it corresponds, for it is " Nemo me impute lacessit." I have demonstrated that you have mutilated the works of Calvin, and thus forced from them a meaning the very reverse of what he intended to convey. — I have proved that you have had the hardihood to attribute to him statements which he never uttered, and for which you could not show even a shadow of authority. — I have confronted you with the great Reformer himself, that he might explain to you the " profane boldness" of episcopacy — I have pointed out how you have garbled Be- za by the most shameless misquotation — and I have brought you face to face with that good old minister, that he might rebuke you sharply — and now, sir, may I ask you, are you not confounded ? I fear you are too determined a partisan to concede so much as to acknow- ledge your downfal. You struggle with all your heart until your strength gives way, and until you are spoiled of every one of your weapons of war, and even when you are fairly hurled from the ramparts, you will raise a shout of victory as you lie vanquished on the ground. SECTION VIII. — CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. I have now, sir, canvassed the various to- pics which you have presented to my notice; « Bez. Epist. lxxix. p. 315, Genev. 1575. + Fresbyterianism Defended, p. 77. t Letters, p. 175. but before laving down my pen, I would wish to make some general observations. In the beginning of your letter you are pleased to give me praise of which I feel myself unworthy, and you may therefore consider that I have repaid you with unkindness, and that I have not treated you with the courtesy to which you are entitled. I can assure you that had truth permitted, it would have been much more grateful to my feelings to have loaded you with double honour, and to have replied to you in terms the most bland and complimen- tary. But you must remember that I am en- gaged in the discussion of a great question, and that I am bound to do justice to my prin- ciples. I feel that I am fighting the battles of the faith, and mine eye is not to spare, neither am I to have pity. If error be found in those whom I love most tenderly, I must bring it forth and slay it before the Lord. My remarks have been occasionally severe, but I believe that they are characterized by the ho- nest severity of truth. I have sometimes ad- dressed you in a strain of irony, but I con- ceive that its employment can be justified by high precedents,* and in this case I have often deemed it the most fitting weapon with which to repel your foolish and impotent assaults. I regard you as a zealous and eloquent advo cate of the cause which you have undertaken to defend, but I am compelled to add, that your zeal is an overmatch for your candour, and that you often seem to be struggling for victory, when you should rather be struggling for the truth. You vindicate abuses for which the martyred fathers of the Church of Eng- land would have wept, and you plead for ar- rangements against which such men as Lati- mer and Hooper have solemnly protested. Error, sir, is not worth defending, and that were truly an inglorious triumph which pro moted the interests of a party instead of the interests of the church. There are persons who affirm that the mode of church government is a matter of complete indifference. Many, indeed, look down with supercilious scorn upon all who agitate the subject of ecclesiastical polity. I am inclined to think that such conduct, in the majority of cases, is the result of inconsideration. Every principle propounded in the New Testament is precious. Our politicians attach great im- portance to a particular form of civil govern- ment, and is it to be thought that the form of ecclesiastical government is absolutely of no consequence ? If the citizens of this world contend for the enjoyment of political freedom, is it not fitting that the citizens of Zion should know and assert their spiritual privileges ? When religion has been in the most prospe- rous state, the question of church polity has excited the greatest interest : and when there- fore I bear a part of the burden of this discus- sion, I do not conceive that I am spending myself for nought Believing that presbytery is an ordinance of God as well as an impreg- nable barrier against ecclesiastical oppression, * 1 Sam. xxvi, 15, 10— 1 Kings, xviii, 27. CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. 65 I rejoice that I have been honoured to appear as the advocate of a cause for which the godly Rutherford contended, and for which the heavenly-minded Guthrie suffered martyr- dom. There are some who deprecate exceedingly the introduction of this controversy — I con- fess I cannot sympathize with such men. If our various points of disagreement were fully and fairly debated, I am convinced that the discussion would terminate, not in the distrac- tion, but in the union of evangelical protes- tants. It is indeed distressing to sec the church of Christ torn into so many fragments, and no one can deplore more deeply than myself the evils of sectarianism. I look forward to a period when all the protestant churches shall be united in one great commonwealth ; and surely our differences should previously be canvassed, that we may be prepared to settle the terms of incorporation. But who at pre- sent are the sectaries ? Does the designation anply to all who refuse to yield an implicit obedience to the decisions of an act of Parlia- ment ? Can a lay legislature pronounce an infallible judgment upon a question of schism ? If so, what is orthodox in Edinburgh must be heretical in London. You speak of the " end- less ramifications of dissent" as " the scandal of Protestantism; "but you would have express- ed yourself more correctly, had you said that they are the reproach of the Church of Eng- land. She has created separation to a greater extent, and in more varied forms, than any other protestant church in Christendom. Had it not been for the immense advantages which an establishment confers, she might long since have been swallowed up by the very evil she has generated. — By her despotic constitution and her unwarrantable ceremonies, she has driven from her pale thousands and tens of thousands of the most pious and enlightened of British Protestants. When the Act of Uni- formity was pressed, it was not without weighty reasons that, in a single day, two thousand of the most learned and godly ministers that ever adorned a Christian church, resigned their livings and retired from her communion. She has never exhibited any symptom of contrition for that foul violation of the rights of con- science ; and until she assume the attitude of repentance and reform, the reasons for dissent must remain obvious and unanswerable. Let the people be permitted to elect their pastors — let the ancient government of the church by presbyteries and synods be restored ; and let faithful men, met in her ecclesiastical assem- blies, be allowed to cut off witli an unsparing band, whatever is amiss in her constitution and her ceremonies, and then she will have made an effectual movement for the suppres- sion of dissent. You may perhaps tell me that presbytcrianism in Scotland is split up into many sections ; but I can reply that se- cession there is neither so rampant nor so va- ried as in England. Had the Scottish church adhered closely to her own formularies, dissent would have been almost unknown in north Britain. In as far as principle is concerned, the great mass of the Scottish people are per- fectly agreed in doctrine, government, and worship. And now that the Scottish establish- ment is exhibiting the spirit of the olden time, and faithfully recurring to her ancient Stand- ards, I rejoice to see that those who seceded from her in her period of defection, are again lifting up their hands to bless her, and return- ing to the bosom of their venerable parent. I may add that I anticipate very little be- nefit from a perpetual allusion to the autho- rity of the fathers in this controversy. If from them we receive any portion of our ecclesias- tical polity, do we not impeach the sufficiency of our divine statute-book ? Do we not thus give up the principle that the Bible, and that the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ? I am convinced that prelacy, in a modified form, began to show itself very early in the Christian church, but I am equally satisfied, that it is not more ancient than monachism or prayers for the dead. From the confident tone which you assume, it might be thought that the early fathers are altogether in your favour ; and I have therefore occasionally ad- duced their testimony, because I felt that otherwise I could not satisfy the scruples of certain readers. I have carefully perused a number of the early writers, and I have no hesitation in declaring, that in the genuine productions of those who immediately suc- ceeded the apostles, I have not been able to discover even the shadow of prelacy. As time advances, I can trace its growth, and at length in the fourth century, it openly usurps almost all that remains of the rights of primitive pres- byterianism. It is admitted by the most learn- ed and sensible of the fathers, such as Jerome, and Hilary the deacon, that, at a very early period, the constitution of the church under- went a change, and the statement is abundantly confirmed by the inquiries of the ecclesiasti- cal historian. It is therefore in vain to search for primitive arrangements in the fathers of the fourth or fifth century. If indeed we leave the Scriptures, and take the fathers for our guides, we must inevitably plunge into the abyss of Romish superstition. Besides, to sift all the conflicting testimony which antiquity affords, would occupy much more time than either you or I can well spare. It is stated in the life of archbishop Ussher, that " in the space of about eighteen or nineteen years, in which he made it his chief study, he had read over all the Greek and Latin fathers, as also most of the considerable schoolmen and divines from the first to the thirteenth century."* It is stated again, that he entered upon this great work " at twenty years of age, and finished at thirty eight, strictly observing to read such a proportion each day, from which no occasions whatsoever should divert him."f A man who could spend eighteen or nineteen years in the perusal of works, which in many eases are but * Life of Ussher, by Dr. Purr, liis chaplain, p. 12. } lb. p. 5. 1 66 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS. heaps of trash, was endowed with no common share of patience and perseverance. Nothing can be more puerile than the reasoning, or more absurd than the statements of some even of the apostolic fathers. We have the sacred book, from which they derived all that is va- luable in their theology — we havo the same Spirit to instruct us — and in various respects we are furnished with a far better critical apparatus, to assist vis in the investigation of truth. INI any of the early fathers were them- selves converts from paganism ; and, like most others who have wanted the advantages of a Christian education, their minds were still partially clouded by the influence of former prejudices. Their views were consequently imperfect and confused. There are very few of the fathers whose works do not abound with absurdities. I cannot see why the authority of John Chrysostom should be preferred to that of John Calvin — why Crccilius Cyprian of Carthago should take precedence of Richard Cecil of London — or why Clemens Alexandri- nus should outweigh Alexander Carson. If we would expect any advantage from this dis- cussion, we should adhere closely to the Scrip- tures ; and to use the expressive language of a writer I have just named, every text bear- ing upon the subject in debate should be " bolted to the bran." Our knowledge of di- vine things must be regulated, not by our prox- imity to the apostolic age, but by the measure nl' (lie Holy Spirit communicated unto us, to guide us into all truth. We have the sacred record, containing all the evidence upon which we are warranted to build our faith ; and as wo peruse it, were we all equally enlightened from above, we would all recognise the same principles. I anticipate a period, when uni- formity both in doctrine and in worship shall prevail throughout the churches of Christ. When the Spirit in more abundant measure shall be poured upon us from on high, there shall be one Lord, and his name one, and the watchmen of Zion shall lift up the voice to- gether, for they shall see eye to eye.* I am, sir, an utter stranger to you, and I may never meet with you in the flesh. I have animadverted very freely on your letter, but towards yourself I entertain no personal hos- tility'. I have endeavoured to treat your ar- guments with fairness, and I have not willingly overlooked any observation that I considered of the slightest importance. Victory is an affair of very little consequence ; and I trust that it shall ever be my highest ambition to be valiant only for the truth. I am, sir, yours, &c. &c, W. D. KlLLEN. f saiali, Hi, 8. APPENDIX TO LETTER I. ELECTION BY SUFFRAGE. A, p. 13. Acts xiv. 23. " And when they had appointed than riders by suffrage in every church, ami had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. " I have already shown in ' Presbyterianism Defended ' * that a translation tantamount to the above is to be found in Cranmer's bible, and in Beza'a Latin version of the New Testament. I may add that it is likewise supported by the authority of the Geneva bible, of the French version, and of the version of Diodati, as well as by the sanction of Dr. Doddridge, Dr. Adam Clarke, and many others. I shall now assign more fully the reasons why it is to be prefer- red to the reading in our authorized version. 1 st. It ought to be adopted, because it is the primary meaning. Everyone acquainted with the elements of the Greek language knows that X«;j/)t«v«v, according to its derivation, im- plies to stretch out the hand. It is admitted by all, that, with the ancient Greek writers, it de- notes to choose or appoint by suffrage. Any one who takes up a good Greek Lexicon may find copious examples to this effect produced from Aristophanes and others. Archbishop Potter in his ' Antiquities of Greece' states that some of the Athenian magistrates were called X£/£0t«v»t^ because elected by the people to their office by a show of hands. The word X£/£a™vsrayer preceded the laying on of hands. * The imposition of hands, as part of the ordination service, is not here ex- pressly mentioned, and it is worthy of obser- vation that no notice is taken of that ceremony in the account of the appointment of Matthias.f We have here, however, a pretty full account of the settlement of the elders in every congre- gation. There was first — the election — then the fasting and prayer — as they prayed they doubtless laid hands on the individuals chosen, and then in a parting address to the ministers and people they put them in remembrance of their respective duties, and commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. These arguments, I conceive, clearly de- monstrate the propriety of the rendering given at the head of this note. If so, surely we have here a text pointing to a multitude of cases of popular election. B, pp. 25—27. EARLY IRISH CHURCH. The Latin of Prosper is as follows: "Ad Scotosin Christum credentes,ordinatus a Papa Celestino Palladius, primus episcopus mittitur." It would appear that the term Scoti at that period applied rather to the Irish; but this does not affect the theological inference as to the non-existence of prelates in a country * See Acts, vi, 6, and xiii,3. + Acts i, 26. See also Titus, i, 5. EARLY IRISH CHURCH.— EXTENT OF EARLY CHURCHES. G9 where Christianity was disseminated. It is highly probable, that alter Palladius visited Ireland, he passed over into Scotland and died there.* The designation "primus cpis- copus " has greatly puzzled the prelatists. Dr. Monck Masonf alleges that "the word primus docs not appear in thfl best coji/cs of Prosper' s Chronicle," and refers ashis authori- ty to dasher's Primord, p. "!»!>. But in the place cited, the archbishop merely states that in a Hngle copy which he considered very valuable it was not to he found. His declara- tion is,' " In the common editions of Prosper, which Bede also and those other historians mentioned by us have followed, Palladius is said to have been sent by Celestine, as the first bishop of whose primacy there is no men- tion whatsoever in the more perfect Chronicle of his (in Chronieoillius integriore) from which we have just now cited that place." In con- nexion with Bede he previously names nine other ancient writers, and refers to some he- sides whom he does not name. This self-same passage of Prosper has been otherwise tam- pered with in order to meet the views of the Romanists, and Archbishop Ussher felt that the authority of his single copy was not suf- ficient to outweigh the evidence of the best tes- timonies of antiquity. The quotation is given by Bede, and upwards of nine other ancient writers ; and, according to all, Palladius is styled " primus episcopus. " The archbishop therefore admits the genuineness of this reading, ami proceeds to explain it. He alleges that Palladius was sent as a Primalc to Ireland! Not to speak of the extraordinary nature of this interpretation, it is enough to observe, that the argument by which he at- tempts to vindicate it has since been discover- ed to be quite fallacious. He asserts that Ailbe, Declan, Kiaran, and Ibar, had previous- ly been sent as bishops to Ireland-! It is now generally admitted that this position is unten- able, inasmuch as it can be proved that these four persons all lived after the time of Palla- dius. § Besides, it is acknowledged by Dr. Mason himself as an undoubted fact, that " it was not till the beginning of the eighth century that the title of archbishop was known in Ire- land." || We thus see that all the attempts of BOphistry to extract any other than the obvious meaning from " primus episcopus" have en- tirely failed. Moore, though a Roman Catho- lic, candidly declares in his history of Ireland — "Whatever preachers of the faith, foreign or native, might have appeared previously in In hind, it seems certain that before this period no hierarchy had been there instituted, but that in Palladius the Irish Christians saw their first bishop." Tlie Irish were originally Presbyte- rians, and Palladius appears to have been the (irst prelate that ever set a foot on the soil of our green island. According to Ussher we are to date his mission in the year 431. ^[ * Jamieson'9 History of the Culdees, p. 8. + Letter to Thomas Moore, Esq., p. 6. t Primord. pp. Hih), BOl J See Dr. Mason's Letter to Moore, p. 7. II Letter, p. 33. H Primord, p. 801. C, p. 28. EXTENT OF EABLY CHUIICHE9. When I say that, from the records of the first two centuries, prelatists have never yet been able to produce one undoubted case of a bishop who had the charge of two parishes, I merely mean to affirm that the fact is not ca- pable "of historical proof; but I think it by no means improbable, that in a very few cities, such as Rome and Alexandria, more than one congre- gation may have been established within the time specified. Sir Peter King has indeed at- tempted to show,* that in Rome itself there was only one congregation even in the third century; but his reasoning, though exceedingly plausible, is not entirely satisfactory. Writers Of all parties are very much divided respecting the statistics of the church in the apostolic aye; some alleging that in large cities there were then many congregations, and others main- taining that the converts all met together in one place. I must confess that, with certain limitations, I am inclined to adopt the latter opinion. When Paul speaks of the believers in a city not as the flocks, but as " the flock," j- and when he directs an epistle to be read " in the church "J of a particular place, his language seems properly applicable only to a single con- gregation. We are informed that when certain deputies came to Antioch, they u gathered the multitude together" and delivered the letter addressed to that church by the assembly at Jerusalem. Though there were a number of preachers in the principal towns, yet all the disciples may have statedly met together in one congregation ; and even upon this suppo- sition, when we consider that several speakers were in the habit of addressing the same audi- tory,^ and that they preached daily "from house to house," as well as "publicly "\\ we may see that all must have had ample occupation. The success of the gospel in Jerusalem was extraordinary, and seems to have had no paral- lel in the apostolic age. Whilst its progress in that city, shortly after the resurrection, may give us someideaof whatis to be expected at the dawn of the millennium; it is also a strong evi- dence of its truth, for the statement of facts on which it rests, i f unfounded, could then and there have been easily disproved. Though the thou- sands converted on the day of Pentecost and afterwards*! were soon scattered by persecu- tion,** yet the church again nourished. We learn, however, that when the disciples were most numerous, they met together in a com- mon assembly. When they were reckoned by myriads, James and the elders are represented B8 saving, that " the multitude must herds eoine together." (Actsxxi, 22.) Supposing that they then actually amounted totens of thousands, it is probable thai a large proportion of them did not belong to the mother church ; many of them, in all likelihood, as Paul himself, hav- » Enquiry, p. 44—40. + Acts xx, 28. t Col iv.li'. 5 1 Cor. xi v,". I., 29. || See Acts v, 42, and xx, 20. U Acts ii, 41, and iv, 4. ** Acts viii, 1 70 EXTENT OF EARLY CHURCHES. ing come up to Jerusalem to be present at the feast of Pentecost. Granting, what is extreme- ly problematical, that the word myriads * is here to be taken in its literal sense, a meaning which our English translators have not in this case thought proper to attach to it, and admit- ting that forty thousand persons were likely to assemble, we may well wonder where such a crowd could procure accommodation, or how one speaker could address them all; but when it is so plainly intimated that they " must needs come together," we are not at liberty to dispute the statement of the sacred historian. The seven deacons were elected at a general meeting,f though the converts at the time must have been very numerous. There were connected with the temple spacious courts and piazzas capable of containing immense multi- tudes, and when the believers amounted to many thousands, it would appear that the apos- tles addressed them in " Solomon's porch."! When the angel of the Lord released the apos- tles out of prison, he said unto them, " Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people, all the words of this life." (Acts v, 20.) The con- verts at Jerusalem were " all zealous of the law," (Acts xxi, 20,) — they doubtless consider- ed that they had a right to occupy the sacred courts — and, except when the malice of the chief priests was specially excited, they seem to have been permitted to assemble there with- out molestation. Even supposing that they were excluded from the temple, they could in that mild climate meet without inconvenience in the open air ; and we know that in modern times there have been preachers, such as Whitfield, who could be heard distinctly by a congregation of forty thousand auditors. But whilst there were meetings at Jerusalem where the whole church was convened, it is equally clear that there were various places through- out the city where the disciples assembled in separate companies. There is cause to think that the Lord's supper was dispensed in pri- vate houses ; and when that ordinance was ad- ministered, we may reasonably conclude that " the multitude " was divided into a number of smaller congregations. Luke describes them as " continuing daily with one accord in the temple, awd breaking bread from house to house." (Acts ii, 46.) We are told of a meeting of the elders at the house of James,§ and we find that "many were gathered together praying" at the house of Mary, the mother of John, whose surname was Mark. (Actsxii, 12.) But though the number of converts appears to have been much greater at Jerusalem than elsewhere, yet the church which existed in that city was dissolved about the commencement of the siege. Some of the credulous writers of antiquity pro- fess to give the names of the bishops of Jeru- salem from the earliest times, though we know that, for many years after the siege, there was no congregation, and much less a bishop in the place. The christians who retired from Jeru- * Mu^iabi; — Acts xxi, 20. + Acts vi, 1,2. t Acts v, 12. See also ii 46 — iii, 11 — aud v, 42. i Acts xxi,18. salem to the little town of Pella, did not, in all probability, exceed the extent of an ordinary congregation. The gospel at first undoubtedly produced a great sensation, and crowds often listened to the preaching of its ministers, but those who openly embraced it did not form a large sec- tion of the whole population. Our Lord was frequently followed by thousands, and yet his disciples at his death were comparatively few. As Christianity in the apostolic age exposed to reproach and persecution, we may presume that an overwhelming majority of those who were "added to the church," were also con- verted to God. Its progress at that period should be estimated rather by the extent to which it spread, and the permanence of the im- pressions it produced, than by the relative num- bers of those who publicly professed it within any particular territory. At a time when in- tercourse, both by sea and land, was attended with so much inconvenience, it is astonishing that a few poor men, in the course of half a century, disseminated their principles so wide- ly, and actually established congregations in almost every corner of the Roman empire. But though the disciples were, doubtless, much more numerous in cities than elsewhere, it would appear that even there they were wont regularly to assemble in one place. The ar- gument in support of a number of congregations hi populous towns, drawn from the fact that in certain epistles the church in a particular house is often mentioned, is quite unsatisfactory ; for there is no proof that the church thus no- ticed formed an integral part of that to which the epistle is addressed. It is more natural to suppose, that the apostle takes the opportunity of requesting that he may be affectionately re- membered to the church of some adjacent vil- lage or rural district. Thus, when in writing to the Colossians he says (Col. iv, 15,) " Sa- lute the brethren which are hi Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church wliich is in his house " — it is plain, that the church hi the house of Nymphas did not form part either of the church of Colosse, or of the church of Lao- dicea, The disciples appear, in many cases, to have held then- assemblies in private houses, but some of these were capable of containing a considerable auditory.* In the chief cities, persons of distinction embraced the gospel at an early'period, and in several instances their spacious mansions were converted into places of christian worship. Thus," the house of Pu- dens, a Roman senator and martyr, is said to have been employed as a church, and it may be inferred from the rank of its original occu- pant, that it contained large apartments, and that, when somewhat altered, it could afford accommodation to a numerous congregation. It has been argued, that the christians in a great city would be split up hito many congre- gations, inasmuch as the fear of persecution would deter them from meeting in a multitu- dinous assembly. But, had they been subdi- * See Acts i, 13, 15, and xx, 7, & EXTENT OF EARLY CHURCHES. 71 Tided into small companies, it would be difli- cult to explain how they excited so much notice, and provoked so much hostility. They unc onlj occasionally persecuted, and, except at such seasons, it was undoubtedly desirable that they should attract public observation by mustering in their full strength. There were reasons why, even in perilous times, their as- semblies should be numerously attended, and M'e know that, under such circumstances, they met together in fields and deserts.* There is something most dispiriting in the very appear- ance of a little conventicle, and as by r congre- gating in one place, they would enjoy in com- mon the ministry of their most gifted preach- ers, they would thus promote most effectually their mutual edification and encouragement. Corinth and Ephesus were large cities, and yet there is reason to think that the churches established there in the apostolic age should be regarded only as single congregations. Thus, Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, di- rects them how to proceed, "if the whole 0HUBOH BE COME TOGETHER INTO ONE PLACE." ( 1 Cor. xiv, 23.) All the communicants in Corinth seem to have joined together in the observation of the Lord's supper, for the apos tie speaks of them as "all partakers of that one bread," (1 Cor. xiv, 17,) and intimates that they were therefore wont to " come together into one place." (1 Cor. xi, 20.) He upbraids them for their divisions, and yet he tells them that these divisions were exhibited when they were accustomed to " come together in the church." (I Cor. xi. 18.) The Lord had " much people" in Corinth, but it would seem that they were all expected to wait upon tho ministrations of Paul. (Acts xviii, 9, 10, 11.) The argument on the other side drawn from the direction ( 1 Cor. xiv, 34,) — " Let your women keep silence in the churches" cannot be considered as con- clusive, for the word church denotes a congre- gation or assembly, and churches may here re- fer to the successive meetings of the same indi- viduals. Besides, the early christians held very frequent meetings for social worship, and, as the Corinthians enjoyed the ministry of many teachers, they might, as a matter of con- venience, have been collected in various little groups in different districts of the city on or- dinary days, and yet be united on the Sabbath in a common assembly. Whilst their preach ers, doubtless, often officiated in private houses, there seems to have been a general place of meeting known to all, and distinguished by the designation of the church. (1 Cor. xi, 18, 22.) As to Ephesus, when Paul arrived there a second time, he appears to have found only twelve disciples in the city, (Acts xix, 1, 7,) and though he then preached for three months in the Jewish synagogue, yet at the end of that period, he had made an impression only upon part of the congregation. (Acts, xix, 8, 9.) During the two years that lie afterwards re mained there, all the disciples appear to have assembled in the school-house of Tyrannus. (Acts xix, 9, 0.) It is said, Acts' xix, 9, * Euseb. Dook vii. chap. 22. 20) that when the apostle was at Ephesus, "Many of them also which used curious arts brought their hooks together, and burned them before all men ; and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver." I t) by tin; phrase — w before all lion," we understand all the believers in i he city," it must follow, that the whole church on the occasion was met together in one place; or, if we inteqiretit to mean before the public, we may safely infer that persons who po sed the spirit thus displayed, would not be prevented from assembling in a large body through fear of persecution. It has been computed that the price of the books was about equal to £1,875 of our money. When it is considered that all books in that age were ex- pensive, and that such works as those destroy- ed would be deemed especially valuable, it is probable that the converts who had been ad- dicted to curious arts could not have been more than twenty or thirty individuals. Such a number of persons of that particular class might be very justly called many, and the sa- crifices which they felt themselves constrained to make for conscience sake, were a splendid testimony to the power of the gospel. The word of God " mightily grew" at Ephesus, and the disciples are called " much people ;" but as all were converted by a single preacher, (Acts xix, 26,) we may presume that they met together in a single congregation. Vitringa has shown by a series of very ingenious and striking arguments * that the christians dimi- nished instead of increased from Nero to Tra- jan, that is, for about thirty years towards the termination of the first century, and we have cause to think that, when John wrote the apo- calypse, tho seven churches of Asia were only so many congregations. This point is at once established, if it be admitted that the angel of the church was a single individual, and that he filled a situation corresponding to that of the angel <;/' the synagogue, for it is well known that the latter functionary was a congregational officer, and that there was but one angel in a city, only when the Jews belonging to it covdd be accommodated in one synagogue or meet- ing house. John wrote in tlie reign of the tyrant Domitian, and it is a proof that the gospel must have taken very deep root, if even then, when christians were publicly proscribed, one considerable congregation continued sta tedly to assemble in the city of Ephesus. When l'aul wrote his epistle to the Saints at Rome, we have cause to thhdc that they formed a very small church, for though it is said that their "faith" was " spoken of through- out the whole world," (Rom. i, 8.) and though they were distinguished by their graces, we may infer from some statements which are made respecting them, that their numbers were inconsiderable. We are told that when the apostle arrived in Italy, " the brethren" came to meet him "as far as Appii Forum and the three Taverns." (Acts xxviii, 15.) According to the computation of Antonine's Itinerary * Observationcs Sacrae. Lib. iv. cap. vii, viii. 72 EXTENT OF EARLY CHURCHES. as given by Biscoe,* the latter place was twenty-three, and the former forty-one Roman miles distant from the city, and had the disci- ples been numerous, they would have found it both inconvenient and dangerous to travel so far in a public procession along the highway, to meet an individual whose religion was gene- rally so unpopular. f It is said that Paul when at Rome " dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all thai came in ■unto him, preaching the kingdom of God," (Acts.xxviii, 30, 31,) and though we are assu- red that " there came many to him into his lodging," (v. 23,) yet no intimation is given that the place at length began to be too small to accommodate those who wished to enjoy the benefits of his ministry. Some writers lay much stress upon the fact, that many chris- tians suffered at Rome in the reign of Nero, and appeal to the authority of Tacitus, who says that " a great multitude" J were discovered and cruelly punished ; but the phrase when thus employed conveys no very definite mean- ing, for it might be properly applied to five hundred or a thousand persons in circumstan- ces of peculiar distress. Several statements to be met with in ancient documents, strongly favour the idea, that at first there was only one congregation in each of the principal cities. Thus Justin Martyr, in a passage already quoted, speaks of the christians in cities as meeting together on the day called Sunday in one place. Though little importance can be attached to the Ignatian Epistles, it is clear that, when they were fabri- cated, the same state of things continued. Then all the believers in the place met toge- ther at one altar or communion table. " If," say they, " the prayer of one or two be of such force as we are told, how much more powerful shall that of the bishop and the whole church be. He therefore that does not come together into the same place with it, is proud and has already condemned himself."§ And again, — "Let it be your endeavour to partake all of the same holy eucharist, for there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood; one altar, as also there is one bi- shop." || We may deduce the same inference from the information we possess respecting the numbers of christians in some of the most po- pulous cities at an early period. According * History of the Acts, chap. x. + See Acts xxviii. 22. t Annal xv. 44. i I here, and in the following quotation, give the translation of archbishop Wake. It is worthy of notice, that the above passage is contained in the epistle to the Ephesians, sect, v, so that even supposing the letter ge- nuine, there was, according to it,iu the time of Ignatius, only one congregation in Ephesus. II Epist. to I'hiladelphians, sect. iv. We may observe that this letter is addressed to another of the seven churches mentioned in the Revelation. to Bishop Burnet, Moyle and Gibbon, * about ihc middle of the third century, and when the church had enjoyed peace, almost without in- terruption, for thirty-eight years, the number of christians in Rome amounted to about fifty thousand. The inhabitants of the city at that time may be estimated, upon the very lowest calculation, at upwards of a million, so that the disciples did not then form the one twen- tieth part of the population. It is generally admitted that the christians at Rome had been progressing from the first century, and though, by reason of their persecutions, their increase must have been irregular, yet supposing that they were doubled every thirty years, which, when their zeal is considered, is certainly a very moderate rate of augmentation, it would follow that about the middle of the second century, they could not have exceeded five thousand. According to the same mode of reckoning, they could not, within the limits of the apostolic age, have surpassed the extent of a very moderate congregation. It is highly pro- bable that, for a considerable part of the second century, they were not more numerous than was Calvin's congregation at Geneva, in the sixteenth century, for it is stated that the Re- former on a single occasion was wont to dis- pense the Lord's Supper to four thousand communicants. There is reason to think that, except at occasional seasons of grievous per- secution, the believers in Rome were permit- ted openly to celebrate the rites of their reli- gion. It is certain that when, in the beginning of the third century, they had a dispute with the butchers respecting the possession of a piece of ground within the city, and when the case was submitted to the decision of the Emperor Alexander Severus, he decided that the christians should be permitted to occupy it for a place of worship. When we recollect that from an early period the Roman church was the largest in the world,f we may form some idea of the extent of the thousands of other bishoprics scattered throughout the rest of Christendom in the second century. It is extremely probable that very few bishops had then the pastoral care of so many as two hun- dred families; and though in various places they are to be found planted at distances of two or three miles, prelatists plead that their diocesans are the representatives and succes- sors of these ancient dignitaries. An unpre- judiced mind will rather be disposed to regard the early bishops as humble parochial min- isters. * Decline and Fall, chap. xv. Riugham seems to as- sent to the same estimate. Ecc. Orig. Book ii, chap, xiii, sect. 1. + Irenaeus, writing about A D. 180, speaks of the Roman church as "very great," and intimates that all other churches should pay special respect to it, — Adver- sus Haereses. Lib. iii, chap. iii. LETTER II. DY THE HEV. WILLIAM M'CLUUE, LONDONDERRY. The Pastors of the Christian Church of one order, and of equal authority. TO THE REV. A. BOYD, CURATE OF THE CATHEDRAL, LONDONDERRY. Rev. Sir, — You very justly observe that " per- sonalities are ever to be regarded as the weapons of the advocates of a losing cause." Ami lest there should be any doubt as to the correctness of your observation, you proceed to illustrate it by your own conduct. The dis- courses on which you have so freely animad- verted were addressed to the public in defence of the presbyterian system, which had been frequently and violently assailed, both from the pulpit and the press. They were called forth, not only by your first tiny volume, but liy assaults on many sides, and more especi- ally by another publication, whose author is supposed to stand upon a literary eminence considerably above the author of the ' Ser- mons on the Church.' The course that you have adopted, in addressing me by name, is, you will permit me to say, very injudicious. The controversy is one of deep and general in- terest; but your mode of conducting it tends to represent it as a matter in which individuals only are concerned — That it opens an effec- tual way for personality, sarcasm, and vain boasting, no one who has read your late pro- duction will hesitate to admit. If an affecta- tion of learning and confidence of assertion can avail, your victory is complete. Prelacy, your favourite idol, stands secure, and Pres bytery is levelled to the dust. You have done me the honour of addressing to me two letters. I trust the public are satis- fied with the manner in which the first has been disposed of in the preface to this volume. I now proceed to reply to the second, and hope, when I have concluded, you will have no reason to complain that I have stated unfairly any ' thing \ on have brought forward, or have left any Important point unnoticed. The question between us relates exclusively to those officers of the church who " labour in word and doctrine." According to the Church of England, there is a distinction of ranks among the ministers of religion, and one i it its fundamental articles is, that a bishop is supe- rior to a presbyter. In opposition to this, Presbyterians hold that the pastors of the church are of one order and of equal authority. You have accepted my statement of the question, and it is therefore admitted on all hands to be correct. The former opinion, I assert, has no countenance in Scripture, or in the first ages of the Christian church. Though prejudice and interest may be leagued upon the side of prelacy, it is a system that has no authority from the word of (J od, and no support from the earliest of the fathers. I adhere to the proposition which I formerly laid down, " that the pastors of the /lock who are to give them- selves to the ministry of the word, and to con- duct the ordinances of religion, are of one order, have no earthly superiors, and are equal in rank and power." SECT. I. OUR LORD'S REBUKE OF PRELACY. You commence your aggressive operations by mutilating the text on which my discourse was founded. Examine your Bible, sir, and you will find that you have omitted the impor- tant words printed iu Italics. " Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the G entiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so it shall not be among you."* The words of our Saviour I took to mean — " There may be princes and potentates of the world, and there. may be, for managing the temporal affairs of nations, officers of various orders and different ranks ; but among you, the rulers of my spi- ritual kingdom, it shall not />»• to, yon are all of one order and of equal power." Your page of preface, closing with a piece of harmless all'ec tation, it is unnecessary to notice. The erroneous views entertained by the dis- ciples of our Lord, respecting the kingdom lie * Hark x, 42,43. K 74 OUR LORD'S REBUKE OF PRELACY. was about to establish, are sufficiently appa- rent. That the sons of Zebedee were ambiti- ous is also undoubted; but the peculiar object of their ambition you. have omitted to notice, although you will observe that this is quite ne- cessary to the proper exposition of the passage. Pre-eminence above their fellow- apostles was the object to which they ardently aspired. Not only did they desire a lofty station, but such a station as would raise them above their bre- thren. It is evident that the rest of the apos- tles understood them in this way, and hence their indignation when they heard their re- quest. We cannot suppose that our Lord would confirm the misconceptions of his disci- ples, or give any countenance to the idea that it was a temporal kingdom he was about to es- tablish. No, his rebuke had reference solely to what he designed should be the arrangement of Lis spiritual kingdom — his church. In the church, therefore, he intended not only, as you say, " to repress the workings of worldly am- bition," but to go farther, and pointedly to con- demn that special form of ambition which ap- peared in the conduct of the two disciples — the desire of official pre-eminence. It is eccle- siastical ambition, the ambition of ruling over their brother apostles, which our Lord ex- pressly forbids. In rebuking this prelatical spirit he adduces the case of the nations of the earth. He passes no judgment on their civil constitution, but sim- ply states the fact, that there is among their rulers a gradation of ranks. Here is to be obser- ved the importance of the centre clause, which you have thought proper to leave out. It speaks of different classes of officers, one rising above another. It was this feature in temporal gov- ernments to which our Lord especially referred, and the other evangelists, who record his words, take care to mark this most distinctly,* in or- der to show that gradation of ranks among the pastors of his church was that which he ex- pressly condemned. You next bring forward the words of our Saviour — " Even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister;" and in your observations upon this text, neither your logic nor your candour are very conspicuous! i You tell me, " he identifies himself with his disciples while showing what it is that he con- demns." And what is it that he condemns ? " It is the working of worldly ambition," you will say. Yes, and it is more than this. It is the desire of possessing authority over their brethren. It is prelacy in his church and kingdom. This is the danger against which the Saviour warned his disciples. You profess to think that, according to my inter- pretation, Christ assumed no authority over his followers, and that he warned them to exercise no spiritual power over others. The meek and lowly Jesus offers himself as an example of the spirit that should animate his disciples, and the humility that should adorn their cha- racter. But how does he, upon that account, * Matthew xx,25, 20— Luke, xxii, 25, 26. bring himself in all respects to a level with his followers ? No such supposition is necessary. Our Lord's reference to himself is perfectly con- sistent with my interpretation, and with his own spiritual supremacy. The other inference you attempt to draw from what I have said is equally inconclusive — " That he commanded them to exercise no spiritual power over others." Pray, where did I say this, or from what part of my interpretation can it be justly deduced ? The apostles, according to the view I have given, were forbidden, as individuals, to exercise any spiritual authority over each other, and through them the prohibition is ad- dressed to their ministerial successors in every age. But I did not say, nor is it a fan - infe- rence from my interpretation, that they were not to have spiritual power over other mem- bers of the church. In closing this notable exhibition of your expositoiy powers, you inform me that " he made to them a promise of ecclesiastical dis- tinction — ' Ye shall sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel ;' by which you ob- viously intend that they should be raised to what you elsewhere call " the episcopal dig- nity." You must have known, sir, that these words could have no such reference. Had our Lord promised, as you intimate he did, that the apostles woidd exercise ecclesiastical au- thority over the twelve tribes of Israel, that pro- mise would certainly have been fulfilled. But the apostles never exercised such authority over the Israelites. Your interpretation, there- fore, stands in opposition to an historical fact. " You quote a passage of Scripture," Mr. Boyd, " explain it according to your own de- sire or your own fancy, assign no reason what- ever for the interpretation you are pleased to put upon it, and then raise an argument upon your own unsupported comment. Before you can press the passage into your service, you are bound to show that your interpretation of it is correct. This you have neither done nor attempted to do ; and you surely cannot expect that I am to take your explanation as infalli- ble," especially when it stands contradicted by a well-known fact. The parallel passage* shows that our Lord referred to the day of final retri- bution. " When the Son of Man. shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." In the course of your second letter addressed to me, this text is quoted on several occasions,f in hopes that its true meaning might be over- looked, and that it might pass current as an argument for your cause. Any one accus- tomed to compare Scripture with Scripture, must perceive its inapplicability to the point at issue, and must feel convinced that its pro- duction was nothing but an unworthy attempt ad captandum vnlgus. You must be aware, that the solemn rebuke of our Lord has often been brought to bear with powerful effect against the papal supre- macy. The advocates of that cause have wished * Matthew xix, 28. + Pages 41, 56, 6?. IDENTITY OF PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. 75 to evade its force, by resorting to expedients similar to yours, and trying to explain away the obvious meaning of the word of God. O ! 'tis a melancholy sight to behold a minister of the Reformation joining the ranks of Popery, and in his zeal to uproot a protestant church, throwing away the Weapons by which he might successfully assail the Man of Sin. But, sir, yon and your allies labour in vain. The words of the Redeemer stand upon the page of in- spired truth, and will for ever stand, a solemn protest against the prelacy alike of England and of Rome :— " Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exer- cise lordship over them ; and their great ones exercise authority upon them; but so it shall NOT BE AMONG YOU. 8ECT. II. — IDENTITY OF TRESBYTEIIS AND BISHOPS. Your notice of my second argument is equal- ly defective and unsatisfactory. I had proved in my discourse the identity of presbyters and bishops, from the indiscriminate use made of these terms by the inspired writers, and shown that, in the New Testament, no distinction whatever is recognised among the ministers of the gospel. So complete was the evidence ad- duced, that you are forced to " admit, that the same appellations are indiscriminately given to ministers in the New Testament."* To weaken the force of this demonstration, which men vastly more learned than yourself have acknowledged to be unanswerable, you reply that " words and titles are perpetually chang- ing their significations." This is no new dis- covery. It did not require to be thus announ- ced ex calhredd. The change in significa- tion to which the words presbyter and bishop were afterwards subjected, is not the point at issue. Their meaning in the Scriptures is that with which alone we have to do. The term " apostle " is one which, as you intimate, has been applied occasionally to persons who did not exercise the apostolic office, properly so called. Sometimes this word is applied in ge- neral to any one sent by another, and some- times to the twelve. But in every case there is something to point out the meaning of the term. Epaphroditus is called, in the Epistle to the Philippians, " your apostle," or, as our translators have rendered it, " your messen- ger;'^ because he had been sent by them with a supply of money for Paul. The brethren in 2 Cor. viii, 23, are " the messengers of the churches," hu whom, and not to whom, they were sent. These circumstances sufficiently distinguish them from those called " apostles," eminently, without any addition, or " apostles of Christ" Admitting that " the title bishop or ' epis- copos' was at first bestowed upon all minis- ters," you tell me, that " in process of time, the term once applied generally became used restrictcdly ; so that many of the most compe- Letters, p. 42. + Pbil. 11,86. tent authorities have affirmed, that, after the apostolic age, the title is never applied but in tin' usual and prelalical sense." That some centuries after the apostolic age, the' word " bishop " was generally applied in the prelati- cal sense, I am not disposed to question. When I have the testimony of history and the evi- dence of my senses, I can safely trust you. So far we are agreed. Those who were under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, applied the words presbyter and bishop to min- isters of the gospel indiscriminately. Follow- ing their example, the early believers made no distinction. A change afterwards took place. Pray, does it appear that any incon- venience was felt, any confusion created by the indiscriminate use of these names during tho times of the apostles? If not, what ren- dered any alteration necessary ? Upon what authority was it made ? Not certainly upon the authority of the apostles, or of any of the inspired writers ; for in the whole compass of the Bible there is not a single text to justify it. No, sir ; a change first took place in the go- vernment of the church, a new order was brought in, which the apostles never heard of, and distinctions were made, that the word of God never sanctioned, and then the names were changed. " The question," you say, " cannot be one of words." Let me remind you, that it is by words that the will of God is revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures. It is by reasoning on a single word that the apostle Paul establishes a most important truth in Gal. iii, 1G. Your observations on this point have a most dangerous tendency. If correct, you deprive the advocates of our Lord's essential divinity of a leading and important argument. When you would establish this doctrine of our holy religion, I doubt not you commence with showing, that the names given to the Father are applied also to the Son, such as God, Jehovah, the Lord, &c; and from this you infer, that they are the same in substance, equal in power and glory. But if youT rea- soning on the names "presbyter" and "bi- shop " be sound, this argument is destroyed. Reckless of consequences, you have thrown away this weapon of defence, that has often been wielded with resistless power against the attacks of Unitarianism, and the argument which has ever been considered powerful and conclusive in support of evangelical truth, you have had the temerity to pronounce a "so- phism." You think to save your cause, by exclaim- ing — " I care not what title you fix upon min- isters ; for I look to the office and the duties, and not to the names." " There was among the clergy a difference of administrations — some were endued with functions which others did not possess."* This assertion is good for no- thing, simply because there is no foundation for it. Not only the names, but the offices and duties of bishop and presbyter were the same in the apostolic age. You have entirely * Letters, p. 43 76 IDENTITY OF PRESBYTERS AND BISHOPS. omitted any reference to the evidence already brought forward from the New Testament — evidence that demonstrates the fallacy of your plea. You will find it in ' Preshyterianism Defended,' p. 119. " The word bishop, tvitrxovtos is never used in the New Testament to signify the oversight over ministers, but only over the flock of Christ. Acts, xx, 28 ; 1 Pet. v, 2, 3. " II. Bishops and presbyters have the same qualifications. Titus, 1, 5 — 9 ; 1 Tim, iii, 1, 2, &c. ; Acts, xx, 17, 28. " III. Bishops and presbyters have the same ordination. Acts, xx, 17, 28 ; Tit. i, 5 — 7. " IV. Bishops and presbyters have the same duties. 1 Tim. iii, 2, 4, 5 ; v, 17, together with proofs as above. " V. Bishops and presbyters have the same power and authority. In the above passage, no dictinction is made, neither is their any in the New Testament, at least in favour of bi- shops. These things are surely enough to prove their identity, or at least that bishops were not superior to presbyters. But we go farther. " VI. Presbyters only are expressly said to ordain. ' Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.' 1 Tim. iv, 14. " VII. The apostles sometimes call them- selves presbyters, but never bishops. " VIII. Presbyters are mentioned as join- ing the apostles hi the council at Jerusalem ; but no express mention is made of bishops. Acts, xv, 2, 4, 6, 22, 23. " IX. The collections for the poor at Jeru- salem are to be sent to the presbyters, and no mention is made of bishops. Acts, xi, 30." You will perceive from this, that Scripture does not deal alone with names, but also with offices and duties ; and I call upon you to pro- duce one single passage from the Apostolical writings, in which it appears from the context that the two terms (a^/Wsgef and; tirlirxii-iros) were ever used to mean different offices. I know you cannot.* Supported as I am by the unvarying and frequent testimonies of the sacred writers, I utterly deny that there were peculiar functions appointed to bishops, as distinct from presby- ters. When hard pressed with Scripture proof, I know you will attempt to take flight among the fathers ; you will try to show, than in after times there was some difference of rank among the clergy. But evidence of this will avail you nothing. It will only prove the early corrup- tion of the church, and tbat men in after ages departed from the original simplicity of the gospel. Tell me, if you please, of the state of * It is a remarkable and important fact ? that the Syrian translation of the Scriptures, which is so very ancient, that it comes nearest in time to the original, nses the same word to express both bishop and presby- ter. (See Syrian version on ] Tin;, iii, I, and Titus 1, .5, 7.) This is a strong proof that any distinction between bishop and presbyter was unknown when this transla- tion was made — Walt. Pref. de Edit. Bib. Polygl- p. 30—40. things in ages subsequent to the closing of the sacred canon, of the pre-eminence of some ministers over others, and of all the pride and pomp of prelacy. I answer, " From the be- ginning it was not so." The Scripture tells me, that all ministers of the gospel stood upon the footing of equality; that their names, offi- ces, and duties, all were originally the same ; and therefore I conclude it should be always thus. The fact is, that the terms apostle, bishop, presbyter, and deacon, were as distinctive, and were annexed to certain offices with as much exactness, as any official titles can be at the present hour. The first was given by our Sa- viour, to designate officers commissioned im- mediately by himself to travel from city to city, and establish his church among the heathen. The last, deacon, was given to officers ordained by the apostles, to attend to the wants of the poor.* The other, elder or presbyter, was used to designate ordinary ministers of the gospel. These Christian presbyters were also bishops, the former denoting their authority as riders, the latter the duties incumbent upon them. Now, we never find in Scripture a dea- con called a bishop or a presbyter. And why ? Because they do not signify the same thing. But we repeatedly find a bishop call- ed a presbyter, and vice versa. And why ? The inference is plain ; because they do sig- nify the same thing; that is, they mark one and the same rank of ecclesiastical rulers. A little reflection might have taught you, that your theory of the names of all ministers being the same, and yet the duties of some being different from the rest, spreads confusion and absurdity over the writings of the apostles, and the transactions of the early church. When a bishop or presbyter was spoken of, nobody could tell, according to your view, what officer was meant, whether a prelate or a priest. Paul and Barnabas ordained elders (presbyters) in every city. Timothy was in- structed respecting those who were to be or- dained bishops and deacons. How was it to be known what officers were meant ? Would you affirm that, under the cover of this " fleet- ing" image, ten or a dozen diocesans might have been settled in every city ? On your * It may be observed here, that there is a wide dif- ference between a deacon of the New Testament, and a deacon of the Church of England. The former was ap- pointed for the management of temporal affairs only — (Acts vi, 2, 3)— the latter is clothed with a spiritual office — very low indeed— inferior to that even of a curate ; but still he is supposed to be capable of preaching and administering half of the communion- Not only in the apostolic age, but long after that period, the duties of deacons were merely secular. We find Epiphanus affirming (Bingham, Bookii, sect, ix,) that" the deacons were not entrusted with the sole administration ot any sacrament," and Bingham himself iuforms us (Book ii, sec. xvi) that in the Greek church they were always the 3-i/Amjo." or door-keepers . . the deacons were commanded to stand at the men's gate, and the sub- deacons at the women's, to see that no one should go out or come in during the time of the oblation." Arch- bishop Potter acknowledges their office to have been of a secular nature, and states that in early churches they were not permitted to preach or to baptise. — Discourse on Church Government, pp. 156, 173. PLURALITY OF RULERS IN ANTIOCH, &c. vague and unsupported hypothesis, the sacred writers have confounded the names of minis- ters, and left the most important officers of the church without a distinctive appellation, they have written in a language altogether indis- tinct and calculated to mislead us, and that too on a subject which we are told lies at the Inundation not merely of the welfare, but of the very existence of the church. Happy for the world that a man of your theological acumen has arisen in the nineteenth century, capable of correcting the blunders of the apostles, and teaching them greater accuracy of expression ! SECT. III. PLURALITY OF BULERS IN THE CHURCHES OF ANTIOCH, EPHESUS, PHIL1PPI, AND THESSALONICA. My third argument was drawn from the state of several churches mentioned in the New Testament, in each of which there was a plu- rality of bishops or presbyters, equal in rank and authority. You are kind enough to say, that I "must have studied Scripture with either a most inattentive or prejudiced eye, if I can seriously advance such a statement." Now, it is some comfort, in receiving your reproof, that it applies to the apostle Paul as well as to my- self; for he expressly asserts, that in several churches there was a plurality of bishops.* But you dispute the fact of their equality, and undertake to prove, that " they were men un- der authority ;" by which, I presume, you mean that they were under a diocesan bishop. In your zeal to press forward to the conflict, you talk of " seven " prophets and teachers at An- tioch on the occasion referred to. Now, in the thirteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, I read only of five. Perhaps these two addi- tional personages, being newly discovered, and without names, have been diocesan bishops. You blame me for saying that Paul and Barnabas were ordained by the prophets and teachers of Antioch, although you ought to know, that in this opinion I am supported by a host of learned commentators, many of them of your own church.-f- You think they were set apart only for a temporary mission, from what is saiJ, Acts, xiv, 2(> — " They sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recom- mended to the grace of God, for the work which they fulfilled." The original word J fails to support your assertion. It does not prove that they had finished the work that was laid on them by the imposition of hands; for it may just as properly he rendered the work which they "fully or faithfully performed." This is its meaning also in Rom. xv, 19 — " So that from Jerusalem and round about unto Illvri- cuun, I have fully, thai is, faithfully, preached the gospel of Christ." Besides, though it is your opinion that tin v had accomplished theirmissiorj at the time referred to in the fourteenth < li;i)> ti r, it w as not the opinion of Paul and Barna- bas themselves, as appears from Acts IV, -U\, — " Some days after, l'aul said unto Barua- * PbiL i, t— Acts \x. + Hammond, lajlor, Ligbtfoot, &c. bas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord." There is every reason, there- fore, to believe that this was truly an ordina- tion to the ministerial office. It was not a matter of chance, as you would wish me to be- lieve, when you say, " they happened to be en- gaged," and " occasion was taken of the mini- sters of the church being collected for religi- ous exercises, to havo Barnabas and Saul commended solemnly to the Lord's grace for an important object." No. The com- mand was first given, " as they ministered to the Lord and fasted." After that, some time, perhaps days and weeks, intervened be • fore they engaged in the solemn work, and in preparation for it, they again " fasted and pray- ed." The church appears to have assembled " specially, designedly, and regularly," for the performance of the commanded duty. Con- sider, farther, the work to which Paul and Barnabas were appointed. It was the work of the ministry — the work of bringing sinners to a knowledge of the truth. Do you call this a temporary employment ? No. It was a work in which, to the latest period of their lives, they were earnestly devoted — a work that ne- ver could be said to be completed, while there was one soul unconverted to the truth. True, indeed, Paul was " an apostle not of men, nei- ther by men, but by Jesus Christ:"* and, commissioned as he was by the great King and Head of the church, he might have exercised the apostolic office without the imposition of hands. But God saw fit that he should be ordained, in order to put honour upon the rite of ordination, and to point out the manner in which others shoidd be set apart to the work of the ministry in all succeeding times. But not to dwell upon this point, there is nothing more plain than that, as there was a plurality of teachers at Antioch, so they acted together as a presbytery in the separation of Paul and Barnabas unto the work whereunto God had called them. The divine command was addressed to them all in common — " Se- parate'ye me Barnabas and Saul ;" and in obe- dience to that command they all joined in the solemn act, " they (the presbyters) laid their hands on them and sent them away." Is it not obvious from this, that there was a plura- lity of rulers in the church of Antioch, all unit- ing together in the act of ordination ? The evidence is so plain, that the man who has no purpose to serve, and no deep-rooted preju- dices to overcome, cannot doubt it for a mo ment. Not the remotest hint is given that this church was under the sole government of a single person, not the slightest trace is to be found of an officer that can be compared to a modern bishop. You invite me to look a little deeper into the stale of the Antiochean church, and speak of the discussion that arose in thai Community, having been referred to the apostles far deci- sion. You very disingenuously withhold the fact, that elders were united with the apostles • Gal. i, 1. 78 PLURALITY OF RULERS IN ANTIOCH, &c. in their deliberations. The plain history of the sacred record does not answer your purpose, and therefore you warily suppress this impor- tant statement.* The question was referred to an assembly consisting of the representatives of various churches, and in this assembly the apostles acted as members of the council, and not authoritatively as inspired servants of God. The circumstance to which you refer confirms the view that I have taken. The persons sent from the church of Antioch, to the meeting at Jerusalem were commissioned, not by a single person or prelate, but by the presbytery of that church, and " they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question, "f The power of the prophets and teachers of Antioch was thus re- cognised and exercised without the slightest in- terference of a superior dignitary. From the confident tone in which you set out, I expected to be informed who was the diocesan of the Antiochean see. On an im- portant occasion, like the meeting of his clergy, I thought the prelate could have been easily distinguished with his mitre and crozier seated upon his throne, and surrounded by his ap- paritors and pursuivants. I have examined attentively the passage in the Acts of the Apostles, together with your comments on the same, and yet I cannot get a glimpse of this exalted personage, nor can I leam a single word that he uttered, or a single act that he performed. You tantalised me with the hope of introduction to his Grace of Antioch, but I am doomed to disappointment. Your magic fails to conjure up the image of a prelate. Nought is to be found but the any visions of your own imagination. We pass on to the churches of Ephesus, Philippi, and Thessalonica, and try to discover that much desired object— a diocesan bishop. Here you do me great injustice in the state- ment of my argument. You lead a reader to suppose that I had only proved each of the churches to have had many ministers. You know well that I did more than this, that I demonstrated from Scripture that the presby- ters of these several churches were clothed with an authority which, according to the En- glish system, is confined to its prelates. J The elders of Ephesus were not only called bishops, but were exhorted " to feed " or rule " the church of God." The church of Philippi had several bishops, § and no intimation is given that any one possessed authority over the rest. And again, among the people of Thessalonica there were many pastors who " laboured among * " It was referred to the apostles at Jerusalem." — Mr. Boyd's Letters, p. 46. " The Apostles and Elders came together to consider of this matter." — TheEvan- gelist Luke, Acts xv, 6 — 7. t Acts xv, 2. * Preshyterianism Defended, p. 88. 8 Dr. Adam Clarke, no mean authority, has observed on the text, Phil, i, 1— "There has been a great deal of paper wasted in the inquiry, ' Who is meant by bishops here, as no place could have more than one Bishop ? To which it has been answered, Philippi was a Metro- politan see and might have several Bishops.' This is the extravagance of trifling. I believe no such officer was meant as we now term bishops." them and who were over them in the Lord. "* Pray how do you reconcile the arrangement of these apostolic churches with a system that admits but of one ruler over a number of sub- alterns? But Paul, you say, " summoned" f the presbyters of Ephesus to him at Miletus and there addressed them. Paul indeed ad- dressed the elders of Ephesus, and he fore- warned them of the dissensions that would arise-, and of the false teachers that would appear among them. If prelacy had been the order of the day, this was the very time to des- cant upon its blessings, to show that when error and contention should come in, their diocesan would be the centre of unity, to insist upon respect for his person and obedience to his authority. Strange, there is not a word about such a personage. On the contrary the apostle tells them that they themselves were bishops— that to them, as a body, the care of all these things is intrusted. Pray give me some reason for this omission — an omission that, upon your principles, is most extraor- dinary. The supposed fact of Timothy's ap- pointment to what you would call the see of Ephesus, I shall have occasion afterwards to canvass. Another circumstance, which you state, is so trilling and feeble that I advert to it only because it is my duty to notice any thing which an antagonist may see fit to call an argument. " Letters of admonition and advice were writ- ten to the bishops and deacons" of several churches, and from this you argue that the writers possessed authority over them. To quote your own language, " If the minister taking this step possessed no authority, then is his epistle an unwarrantable and intrusive in- terference. It is a meddling with the minis- terial charges of others in a manner which neither propriety nor order would sanction. But if he be in the line of duty and propriety in so doing, then must he have possessed an authority and have been of an order which plainly elevated him above them. " J Carry this principle through, and confusion every where prevails. Paul wrote to the Hebrews, therefore he deposed James, and mounted in person the episcopal throne of Jerusalem. Ignatius wrote to several churches, therefore he was diocesan bishop of them all. Mr. Boyd has written to the presbyterian ministers of Derry, therefore he is their prelate. To what absurdities you are driven by attempting to maintain a position so utterly untenable. I confess that I feel great reluctance to no- tice a comparison which you have instituted between the elders of apostolic times and the ministers of the Church of England at Liver- pool, Waterford, and Cork. You have chal- lenged the comparison, and I cannot evade it. I wonder, for the sake of your church, that you * 1 Thess. 5, 12. + The term used in our translation, is " called ;" but "summoned," being a more prelatical word, is chosen by Mr. Boyd. The same word {t^irxxaXiirxi) is em- ployed by Cornelius when he invited Peter to oome to him, (Acts x, 32,) and is used in the account of Joseph sending for his father Jacob, (Acts vii, 14.) t Letters, p. 48. TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH REFORMERS AND DIVINES. 79 ever thought of drawing a parallel between them. Why, sir, they differ in a variety of ways. The former were bishops ; to the latter such a designation would be quite incongruous. The former were expressly intrusted with the government of their respective churches — the hitter have no such privilege. The former ordained others to the work of the ministry — the latter are restrained from the exercise of this right. The former deputed some of .their number to represent them in the council of the church— the latter arc precluded from holding any such assembly. The former were author- ised to cut off the false teachers that might appear — the latter have no such power. " Grievous wolves enter in among them, not sparing the llock ; also men of their own sel- ves arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them," and they have no power to check their course. The former re- gulated their spiritual affairs according to the word of God, and acknowledged no foreign domination — the latter implicitly submit to the enactments of the legislature, their only business being the miserable task of framing apologies for whatever ecclesiastical arrange- ments the rulers of the land may think fit to adopt. The former were freemen — the latter are slaves. We have thus taken an excursion together to some of the churches. We have sailed to Antioch, and witnessed an ordination. We have gone to Miletus, and heard the last ad- dress of Paul to the elders of Ephesus. We have visited Philippi and Thessalonica, and every where have found the brethren ruling as equals in their respective localities. In all our journeying the shadow of a prelate has never crossed our path. Wearied and disap- pointed, you insist upon returning by way of Liverpool, Waterford, and Cork, and here you triumphantly point to men who have surren- dered their privileges, and are tamed into submission by the iron hand of prelacy. Thank God, the church to which I belong is model- led after apostolic and not modern times. It is not " graven by art and man's device." Its ministers may be regarded with contempt by the great ones of the earth, they may have little of this world's splendour and opulence to boast of, but they possess that which is infi- nitely more dear to their hearts, they rejoice in "the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free." SECT. IV. TESTIMONIES OF REFORMERS AND DIVINES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IN FA- VOUR OF PRESBYTERY. The manner in which my next argument has been evaded is by no means creditable. f had appealed to some of the highest authorities among episcopalians themselves, and asserted that the -principal reformers of the Church of England held the same views of which I am an advocate. In Confirmation of this state- ment, I quoted the declaration of the eminent M'Crie, an historian whose integrity and ac- curacy are undoubted. I gave an extract from a document agreed upon by the ecclesiastical commissioners, and issued by royal authority in the reign of Henry VIII, pronouncing the power of one bishop over another to be the ap- pointment of men and not the ordinance of God ; and this was followed by the recorded opinion of Scott, the pious commentator on the Bible. In a discourse addressed from the pulpit, it was necessary to condense as far as practicable my testimonies from the writings of the English reformers, but I took the oppor- tunity of referring, in a note, to the views of Cranmer, Alley, PiMngton, Jewel, Willet, bi- shop Morton, Whittaker, Humphrey, Holland, and Ussher. And how are these testimonies met? By proving that I had mistaken the meaning of these divines? By quotations from their works, shewing that they esteemed prelacy to be of divine right, and presbytery "the gainsaying of Corah?" No such thing. Will it be believed that in a letter professing to reply to this part of ' Presbyterianism De- fended ' they have all been passed over with the exception of two, and these two have been met by an evasion and a quibble ? Will it bo believed, that after being confronted with this array of authorities yon can coolly address me : " You rely upon but two supporters ? " Yet such is the fact. For what reason I cannot comprehend, you have changed the order in which the two au- thorities which you condescend to notice were introduced in my discourse. You imagine that you can undermine the testimony of Scott by depreciating his name as a divine. " I have yet to learn," you observe, " that even for him- self he claimed the character of a deeply learn- ed theologian." * I will only say that I have known some with not a tithe of the worth and talent which he possessed claiming such a character, and expecting it to be conceded to them by others. My object in referring to Scott was to show his opinion of the original identity of presbyters and bishops. The pas- sage which I quoted was quite conclusive upon that point ; the latter part, which you accuse me of intentionally omitting, does not bear upon the topic I was discussing. It relates entirely to subsequent history — to the way in which bishop or inspector " gradually " was appropriated to one particular minister, and prelacy made its way into the church. Had I quoted the entire passage, you would most likely have been the first to complain of an uncalled-for digression ; but now to evade the force of an authority so respectable, you at- tempt to lead away the mind to another subject, and cover your manoeuvre by attributing un- worthy motives to your opponent Before proceeding a step farther, I will again repeat the testimony of this venerable man, whose writings have justly endeared his name and memory to every reader of the Bible. Ho re- cords in these words his opinion in reference to the apostolic age: " There ire re not ilisli net orders of ministers in the elturch at that time. . . * letters, p. 50. 80 TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH REFORMERS AND DIVINES They were called presbyters or bishops indiffer- ently, and no one had any direct authority over the rest."* Among the numerous testimonies adduced, you attack only one other, ' The Erudition of a Christian man.' This document you insist should not be quoted " as an authority in the Church of England," on the ground that " it inculcates the doctrine of the seven sacraments, purgatory, worship of images, penance, and extreme unction." Why, sir, it is a notorious fact — a fact that you dare not controvert, that many in the high places of your church at the present day are tainted with the most danger- ous heresies; some of these very doctrines are openly avowed and gloried in by leading men in the Church of England. I grant that when they have wandered so far into the de- vious paths of error, when they are known to promulgate dogmas subversive of the gospel, they should be cast off by a church that yet retains the name of protestant. But, so long as they are cherished in her bosom, when they occupy her pulpits, when to some of them the training of the future ministers of the church is committed, it cannot be denied that they are members. So that, whatever were the opinions of the persons who drew up tbis document upon other subjects, I am fully justified in calling them members of the Church of Eng- land, and quoting then - opinions as such. In order to show the unfairness and absurdity of your comment, I again quote the passage to- gether with the words which you profess to think of so much importance : " The Scripture makes express mention of these two orders only, priests and deacons, and how they were conferred by the apostles by prayer and im- position of hands." "At all events you observe, this is not presbyterianism, for it allows but of one order and ministers of equal authority." Here my words are misquoted and misapplied. First, they are misquoted, for what I asserted is, " That the pastors of the flock, who are to give themselves to the ministry of the word and to conduct the ordinances of religion, wre of one order, have no earthly superiors, and are equal in rank and power." f Second, they are mis- applied, for they plainly referred only to those who laboured in word and doctrine, and not, as you represent, to deacons as well as to presbyters. I leave you to reconcile this con- duct with the promise " to falsify no truth, to distort no evidence, to do all possible justice to an antagonist." The later clause introduces, you allege " a third order of the Christian ministry in the persons of the apostles," whom you designate " the bishops of the earliest times. " I shall afterwards take an opportunity of showing that the apostles were temporary officers in the church ; that, as such, they had no successors, and that presbyters and deacons were intended in after times to form the only standing and permanent ministry. In the mean time I ob- serve that, at page 94, in attempting to explain * See Scott's Commentary on Acts XX. + Presbyterianism Defended, p. 82. away a testimony of a similar kind, you say that " bishops was a name at first bestowed upon the pastors of congregations, " and that the apostles were clearly of a distinct order from the other two," (bishops and deacons). It would require, I suspect, the exercise of more than ordinary ingenuity to reconcile your contradictory statements in these two parts of the same letter. In the one you assert " the apostles were the bishops of the earliest times ;"* in the other you declare " they were clearly of a distinct order " from the first bishops.f The supporter of a bad cause needs a good memory. You have prudently abstained from any re- marks upon the other testimonies that were brought forward, and I might be content to let them stand alone as public and solemn pro- tests against the haughty and ridiculous as- sumptions of later times. But your unfair and evasive proceedings induce me to appeal once more to the English reformers, and, if shame ever visits their degenerate children, it must be when they contrast the catholic and presbyterian spirit of their fathers with their own narrow-minded bigotry and intolerance. Let me refer, in the first place, to a full and clear statement made in a "Declaration of the functions and divine institution of bishops and priests," in the reign of Henry VIII : " Albeit, the holy fathers of the church which succeed- ed the apostles, minded to beautifie and or- nate the church of Christ with all those things which were commendable in the temple of the Jews, did devise not only certain other cere- monies than be before rehearsed, as Tonsures, Rusures, Unctions, and such other observan- ces, to be used in the administration of the said Sacraments ; but did also institute certain inferior orders or degrees, as Janitors, Lectors, Exorcists, Acolits, and Sub-deacons; and de- puted to every one of those certain offices to execute in the church : wherein they followed undoubtedly the example and rites used in the Old Testament: yet, the truth is, that in the New Testament there is no mention made of any degrees or distinctions in orders, but only of deacons or ministers, and of priests or bi- shops ; nor is there any word spoken of any other ceremony used in the conferring of this sacrament, but only of prayer, and the imposi- tion of the bishop's hands." + To this docu- ment are subscribed the names, Thomas (Lord) Cromwell, the king's vicar General, T. (Cranmer,) archbishop of Canterbury, Edward, archbishop of York, together with eleven bi- shops, and a great number of the most eminent and learned men of that day. Here the Church of England publicly de- clared, that presbyters and bishops are the same. This was their solemnly recorded opi- nion. What then are we to think of those who profess to be their descendants, and yet, who not only denounce their sentiments as errone- ous, but doom all who dare to hold them to the pit of perdition ? * Page 53. + Page 04. X Burnet's Hist, of the Reformation, vol. i. — Addenda, p. 323. IN FAVOUR OF PRESBYTERY. 81 The next testimony I adduce is that of the martyr Latimer. The Church of England has been called "the Church of Latimer." Per- haps it once deserved the name, but a largo section of it has awfully departed from lii* principles ; and were the venerated man now living, he would be an object of persecution and scorn to the very men who boast of him. He thus speaks in a sermon preached at St. Paul's Church, January 18th, 1548, on the text, Ro- mans, xv, 4, (" Whatsoever things were writ- ten," &c.) " But now, you will ask me whom I call a prelate — a prelate is that man, what- soever he be, that hath a flock to be taught of him : whosoever hath any spiritual charge in the faithful congregation, and whosoever he be that hath care of souls; and well may the preacher and ploughman be likened together. First for their labour in all seasons of the year . . . . and then they also may be likened together for the diversity of works and variety of offices that they have to do. For, as the ploughman first setteth forth his plough and then tilleth his land, and breaketh it in furrows, and sometimes ridgeth it up again — and at an- other time harroweth it, and sometimes dung- eth and hedgeth it, diggeth it and weedeth it, purgeth and maketh it clean ; so the prelate, the preacher, hath divers offices to do. . . By this it appeareth that a prelate, or any that hath care of souls, must diligently and sub- stantially work and labour. Therefore, saith Paul, 2 Timothy, ' He that desireth to have the office of a bishop or a prelate, that man desireth a good work.' Then, if it be a good work, it is work — we can make but a work of it. — It is God's work, God's plough, and that plough God would have still going. Such then as loiter and live idly are not good prelates or ministers. . . . And ye that be prelates look well to your office, for right prelating is busy labouring, and not lording ; therefore preach and teach, and let your plough be going. Ye lords, I say, that live like loiterers, look well to your office ; the plough is your office and charge. If you live idle and loiter, you do not your duty, you follow not your voca- tion. Let your plough therefore be going, and not cease, that the ground may bring forth fruit."* Here Latimer describes a prelate or bishop to be one who had a flock committed to his care, and whose especial duty it was to la- bour in word and doctrine. This was the view of the Church of England in his time. Let us gather from the statement of a modern divine its ideas at the present day. " The view of the Church of England rests the administration in the hands of her bishops. According to her ideas, they possess the ' potestas jurisdictionis,' Mini Qie 'potestas ordinis,' the prerogative of government as well as the exclusive privilege of ordaining."f The contrast between the views of these eminent divines is somewhat re- markable. The former makes the tending of * Fruitful Sermons, preached by the Right Hcv. Fa- ther and constant Martyr of Jesus Christ, 1M. Hugh Latimer. London, 1584. + Uoyd s Utters, p. 185. the flock and the preaching of the word the pro- minent duties of a bishop, the latter never men- tions them as belonging to the office. Like most presbyterians, I have little regard for human authority in matters of religion ; but were a de- cision necessary between the contending views, I must prefer the Sermons of the great and good Latimer * to tho Letters of Mr. Archibald Boyd. In commencing your attack upon my testi- monies from the English Reformers, you speak of the learning and critical researches of some divines of the Church of England, of some " whose thoughts were specially directed to points such as those we are discussing." And then you exclaim, " To such authorities you dare not appeal." Among the few names you have given, Stillingfleet and Jewel stand con- spicuous. I know not what infatuation could have led you to make such a bravado, when these eminent men are directly opposed to you. Stillingfleet was indeed a learned man, and one proof of his superior judgment and can- dour is, that he was accustomed to ridicule tho boasting of those prelatists who pretended they had Scripture to support them. Listen to his words : " I doubt not but to make it evident that the main ground for settling episcopal government in this nation, was not accounted any pretence of divine right, but the conveni- ency of that form of church government to the state and condition of this church at the time of its reformation."-)- And in another place, after quoting some of the continental reformers and English divines, he adds, " By w T hich principles the divine right of episcopacy, as founded upon apostolical practice, is quite sub- verted and destroyed." Since with unparal- leled folly you have pronounced that I dare not appeal to Stillingfleet, I will take an opportu- nity from time to time of quoting Ms opinions, and showing how completely he has " subver- ted and destroyed " your arguments for pre- lacy. But it seems Jewel is another authority to which I dare not appeal. We shall see. The pious and learned Jewel was engaged in the Roman Catholic controversy with Harding, a Jesuit. His opponent in one place endea- vours to show the danger of rejecting unwritten tradition, and alleges that they who denied the distinction of a bishop and a priest, were taken for heretics. Bishop Jewel thus replies : — " This is an untruth. For hereby both St. Paul and St. Jerome, and other good men, are condemned of heresy. But what meant Hard- ing here to come in with the difference of bi- shops and priests:' Thinketh he that bishops and priests hold only by tradition ? Or is it so horrible a heresy as he makes it, to say that by the Scriptures of God a bishop and priest are all one ? Or knoweth he how far and to * Hooper agreed with Latimer in maintaining the identity of bishops and presbyters by divine institution, Vcetii Polit. Ecclrs. torn, ii, p. 837. This may be seen also from ' A godly Confession and Protestation of the Christian Faith, made and set forth by John Hooper.' London, USfiO. + Stillingrleet's Ireuicum, p. 390- 82 TESTIMONIES OF ENGLISH REFORMERS AND DIVINES whom he reaches the name of heretic? Verily, Chrysostom saith, between a bishop and a priest in a manner there is no difference. St. Jerome saith somewhat in a rougher sort, I hear say there is one become so peevish, that he sets deacons before priests — that is to say before bishops, whereas the apostle plainly teaches that bishops and priests are all one. . . . . All these and other holy fathers for this saying, by Mr. Harding's advice, must be held for heretics." You tell me that I dare not appeal to Jewel. These are his words : — " The apostle plainly teaches thai bishops and priests are all one." I could not desire a tes- timony more explicit and complete. I proceed now to give the view of another bishop of the Church of England, whose name only requires to be mentioned in order to com- mand respect. It is Bedell. His views are contained in a letter published with his life by Dr. Burnett : " Have you forgotten what you said right now, that matters of ceremony and government are changeable? Yea, but in France, Holland, and Germany, they have no bishops. First, what if I should defend they have ? because a bishop and a presbyter are all one, as St. Jerome maintains, and proves out of Holy Scripture and the use of antiquity. Of which judgment, as Medina confesseth, are sundry of the ancient fathers, both Greek and Latin; St. Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Pri- masius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, CEcumenius, and Theophylact, which point I have largely treated of in another place, against him that undertook Master Alabaster's Quarrel."* This amiable and excellent divine pronounces not only his own conviction that bishops and pres- byters are all one, but that the same view was held by many of the ancient fathers, and is maintained by the reformed churches of France, Holland, and Germany. The last testimony I shall at present bring forward is that of Bishop Burnet. His views are as strongly opposed to your system as any of the preceding. He remarks, " As for the notion of the distinct office of bishop and pres- byter, I confess it is not so clear to me. And therefore, since I look upon the sacramental actions as the highest of sacred performances, I cannot but acknowledge those that are em- powered for them must be of the highest office in the church. So I do not allege a bishop to be a distinct office from a presbyter, but a dif- ferent degree in the same office, to whom, for order and unity's sake, the chief inspection and care of ecclesiastical affairs ought to be referred, &c. ; and I the more willingly incline to believe bishops and presbyters to be the same office, since the names of bishop and presbyter are used for the same thing in Scrip- ture, and are also used promiscuously by the writers of the two first centuries."f I have many other testimonies at hand of a similar kind, which, if demanded, are quite at your service. The desire of brevity alone prevents their production for the present * Burnet, page 453. + Confer, page 310. When I appealed, in ' Presbyterianism De- fended ' to some of the highest authorities among episcopalians themselves, in support of my position, you confessed yourself " startled with the announcement." You declared, " I have such a reverence and respect for the theo- logy of the" Church of England, that I should feel myself exceedingly disconcerted by find- ing myself unsupported by it."* If you were "startled" with the mere announcement, if you were " exceedingly disconcerted" at the thought of being "unsupported" by the venerable refor- mers of England, what ought to be your con- sternation at finding them directly opposed to you — at hearing them declare that the system you defentl has no divine authority, and that the Scriptures give no sanction to the preten- sions of prelacy ? Alas ! sir, you must be very imperfectly acquainted with the writings of the men of whom you boast — you must be grossly ignorant of their characters and opinions. This must have been the case, else the rash and unlearned challenge never had been given — " To such authorities you dare not appeal." Might I recommend the " masterly theology" of England's reformers to your more careful study ? A summer's reading might contribute vastly to your improvement. Connected with the preceding argument, a fact of considerable interest and importance was stated in ' Presbyterianism Defended.'f An ap- peal was made not only to the writings of the early English divines, but to the continental re- formers, proving them also to have held presby- terian principles. Itwas statedthatthe same sen- timents were expressed by Luther, and were em- bodied in the standards of almost all the Reform- ed churches. In proof of this, the articles of the French protestant church, of the Helvetic churches, and others, were quoted.^ These stubborn facts you have 2 J ossed, icithout one syllable of observation, and thus you are forced to acknowledge that they are all against you. It were easy still further to demonstrate the presbyterianism of the continental Refor- mers, by additional quotations — it were easy to show, that wherever the Bible is taken for a guide, the identity of bishop and presbyter is acknowledged and taught. To use the words of an accurate and talented author : — " When the Reformation from Popery occur- * Letters, page 49. + I 'age 123. t To these testimonies was added the decision of the Synod of Dort, which met in 1618, and adopted the con- fession of faith belonging to the Belgic church. The thirty-first article of this confession contains the follow- ing statement — "As regards the ministers of the Divine word, they have every where the same power and au- thority. " This public declaration is deserving of spe- cial attention, when we remember that many of the most learned and eminent divines of Christendom took, part in the proceedings of the Synod. Mosheim informs us (Cent, xvii, Sect. 2, part 2), that "the most eminent di- vines of the United Provinces, and not only so, but learned deputies from the churches of England, Scot- land, Switzerland, Bremen, Hessia, and the Palatinate, were present at this numerous and solemn assembly." Haweis, in his continuation of Milner's Church History, page 739, candidly acknowledges, that " as yet (that is previous to 1588), the English bishops claimed not their office by divine right, but under the constitution of their country; nor pleaded for more than two orders of apo- stolic appointment, bishops and deacons." IN FAVOUR OF PRESBYTERY. 83 red, it is at onco woinlerA.il and edifying to ob- serve with what almost entire unanimity the leaders in that glorious enterprise concurred in proclaiming and sustaining presbyterian principles. Luther, Melanethon, and Bucer, in Germany : Farel, \'iret, and Calvin, in France, and Geneva ; Zuingle, (Ecolampadius, in Switzerland : Peter Martyr, in Italy ; A. Lasco, in Hungary; Junius and others, in Holland; Knox, in Scotland; and a decided majority of the most enlightened and pious friends of the Reformation, even in England, — all without concert concurred in maintain- ing, that in the apostolical age there was no prelacy, bishop and presbyter being the same. It is tine, these different leaders of the Re- formed churches did not, all of them, actually establish presbytcrian order in their respec- tive ecclesiastical bodies; but while all the Reformed Churches in France, Germany, Hol- land, Hungary, Geneva, and Scotland, were thorough Presbyterians, not only in principle, but also in practice — even the Lutherans uni- versally acknowledged that ministerial parity was the order of the apostolic church. , . The Church of England was the only one in all Protestant Christendom which at the Reforma- tion adopted the system of prelacy. This was occasioned by the fact, that iu that country the bishops, the court-clergy, and the monarchs, took the lead in reforming the church ; and, as might have been expected, chose to retain the system of ecclesiastical pre-eminence which had been so long established. It is notorious, however, that this was done originally without any claim of divine right — with a spirit of af- fectionate intercourse and communion with all the non-episcopal churches on the contiuent of Europe; and after all, contrary to the judg- ment of large numbers of the most eminently pious and learned friends of the Reformation in that kingdom."* If, Rev. sir, human tes- timony is of any avail ; if the opinions of those to whom, under God, we owe the blessings of religious liberty — of those whobroke the chains of superstition, and flashed the light of truth upon a darkened world ; if their opinions are entitled to any reverence or respect, presby- tery is the appointment of God — prelacy the invention of man. The Church of England can trace her resemblance alone in the hier- archy of Rome, for in her government and constitution, in her system of prelacy, in the peculiar and exclusive prerogatives of her bi- shops, she stands an anomaly among the chur- ches of the Reformation. We have listened to the solemn warnings of our Lord, and heard him rebuking the spirit of prelacy, when it first appeared. We have found that the names, qualifications, and du- ties of all the pastors of the flock were origi- nally the same. We have seen that in the early churches ministerial parity prevailed, and that pastors exercised in common the pri- vilege's of ordination and government. And in fine, we have the highest authorities of the * Dr. Miller on Prasbyteriantai^p. 20. Church of England, testifying to the same fact, acknowledging that there is no Scripture au- thority for officers superior to those who la- bour in word and doctrine, and that presbytery was the original system of the Christian church. Here, Rev. sir, let me pause to thank you for the specimen you have given of the weak- ness of the prelatical cause. The arguments I have adduced have been assailed with all your power, such as it is ; but your efforts have only served to prove their stability, and to show the firm foundation on which they are erected. Your objections, urged as they have been with so much assurance, are at first cal- culated to lead the unwary astray; but a little reflection, on the part of one acquainted with the Bible, demonstrates their irrelevancy and absurdity. I beg you to observo, that I have maintained every position that I formerly had taken. You have not been able to dislodge me from a single point. My duty now requires me to go farther, and not only to maintain my own position, but to show the weakness of yours. In conducting this controversy, I perceive you walk with implicit reverence in the path of your predecessors. When the professed successors of the lowly fishermen of Galilee were found among the princes and potentates of the earth, when they exercised lordship and dominion over their brethren, it was necessary to find some apology for their conduct. The system was manifestly opposed to Scripture ; and yet it was so fitted to the pride and policy of the world, that it could not be abandoned. What was to be done ? Was prelacy to bow its lofty head, and submit to the simple re- quirements of the gospel ? Were ecclesias- tics to cease their struggle for power, and be- come faithful self-denying ministers of the cross ? Were, they to leave the halls of legis- lation, to attend on the bed of sickness and of death? Were the honours and wealth of this world to be cast aside, that they might labour in the vineyard of the Lord ? No. The sa- crifice was too great, and therefore apologies must he had to justify their conduct. Accord- ingly learned men were employed to search the Scriptures, not so much to throw light upon the subject, as to find some countenance for the system already in operation. They ran- sacked the fathers, and recorded every thing that could be strained into the service of pre- lacy. They seized with avidity and delight upon passages that were evidently interpolated in the dark ages for the support of popery. These have descended from one generation of prelatists to another. And you have collected them together with tolerable assiduity. It is, however, but justice to your inventive powers to observe, that you brought forward one ar- gument in the ' Sermons 011 the Church,' which certainly wore the charm of novelty. You in- ferred the necessity of various ranks in the ministry of the church, from the words of tho apostle, "one star .liH'eivlh from another stai- in glory." You discovered three gradations — " archangels, angel*, and seraphim " — among 84 NO ARGUMENT FOR PRELACY the hosts of heaven, and insinuated that the system of prelacy was actually to he found in the abodes of blessedness and glory. And then, with great complacency you add, " When God came to introduce his system of religion and government upon earth, we find his ar- rangements below analogous to those above.* Unfortunately for this beautiful and fantas - tic theory, it happens that the apostle is speak- ing, not of ranks among the ministers of the church, but of the differences that will exist at the resurrection of the j ust, and that no such order of beings as archangels^ is mentioned in any part of the Scriptures. With a modesty that cannot be too much admired, you have now withdrawn this new and extraordinary hypothesis, which originally stood in the fore- ground of your defence of prelacy. I candidly acknowledge that I had some hand in its de- struction, and am therefore bound to make all the reparation in my power, by reminding the public that it once existed, and by warning all future advocates for prelacy who may use it, that you are fully entitled to the patent for its invention. With this one exception, your ar- guments are old and torn, like the garments of the Gibeonites; and I hope to be able to show, that they all deserve to be treated like the useless, tattered rag that shame has forced you to throw away. SECT. V. NO ARGUMENT FOR PRELACY TO BE DRAWN FROM THE JEWISH POLITY. The argument which, having lost its leader, now stands in the first place, is taken from the Jewish economy, where a ministry of different orders was established by divino authority; and thence you argue for " the inequality of the ministerial rank" at the present day. " God's ways," you say, " are not thus change- able, his plans are not perfection in one age, and ' monstrous absurdities ' in another." You have placed the words " monstrous absurdi- ties " within inverted commas, to convey, I presume, the idea that the phrase is mine. I have simply to say, that I have too much re- verence for the Almighty, to apply such impi- ous lpoiguage to his plans, or silently submit to its imputation. Your argument in this place is based upon the assumption, that any change of arrangement is inconsistent with the wisdom of the Almighty. Upon this princi- ple the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week was inconsistent with the wisdom of God. Are you prepared to condemn this arrangement, and to say with regard to it, " God's ways are not thus change- able, his plans are not perfection in one age, and monstrous absurdities in another ? " But, to keep to the history of religion among the Jews; I hope you are too well acquainted with the Bible, not to know that God ruled Israel first by judges, and afterwards by kings ; * Sermons on the Church, p. 38. + Your notions respecting archangels seem to have been borrowed from a very aucient heretic — Simon Ma- gus, for we learn by Irenceus (Lib. I, c. 20), that he spake of archangels. and yet he was infinitely wise in both. Chan- ges were made, as you must be aware, not only in the state, but also in the church. Both the civil and ecclesiastical power was originally centered hi the same individual — in Adam, the patriarchs, and Moses. Yet afterwards the government of the church was transferred to the priests and elders ; so that the king was no longer priest. The Jewish people vainly supposed that the Mosaic dispensation was to last for ever. They persecuted the first mar- tyr, Stephen, even to death, because he pro- posed to " change the customs which Moses de- livered." * But if your reasoning be correct, it follows that the doctrine of Stephen was to- tally erroneous ; and the zeal of the Jews in stoning him to death, though rather violent, was highly to be applauded ! At the estab- lishment of Christ's kingdom a great and im- portant change took place. The church was no longer to be confined to one nation of the earth. *"The commissioned messengers of the Redeemer were to proclaim over the whole world the glad tidings of great joy. Its circum- stances being so greatly altered, might we not expect a change also in its government ? You refer me for information, upon this point, to the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and there I find that the apostle lays down the principle, that " the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."-)- The only inference that can be fairly drawn from that plan of ecclesiastical government that pre- vailed among the Jews is, that it was the best adapted to prepare for the coming of the Mes- siah ; but it does not therefore follow, that it is best fitted to the Christian dispensation. In point of fact, the ministerial arrangement of the law is not continued under the gospel ; but like the other parts of the former signifi- cant and ceremonial system, having answered the ends of its appointment, it has " waxed old and vanished away." J You spend much time in showing, that a ge- neral analogy may be traced between the Jew- ish and Christian churches. This is a matter that I never heard disputed ; but how it favours your views of the point at issue, I have yet to learn. The rites and sacrifices of the law were intended to lead forward the eye of faith to the great Sacrifice that was to be offered upon the cross. And the Levitical priesthood repre- sented, not any body of men at the present time, hut our Lord Jesus Christ. You speak of the inequality of rank that prevailed, and insinuate that I am contending that all the officers of the church are exactly equal to each other. By no means. I speak only of the pastors of the church ; and while they are of one order and of equal authority, there is an admitted difference among its officers. Christ, our King and Head, the great antitype of the high priest of Israel, is the supreme governor of the church ; presbyters are under him, and deacons under both ; so that if you insist upon carrying out the parallel, it is quite in our favour. * Acts vi, 14. + Heb. vii, 12. J Heb. viii, 13. FROM THE JEWISH POLITY. 85 You informed your congregation in the ca- thedral, that " the orders of the priesthood in Israel were types of the better ministry of the new covenant." " Its threefold orders were carried out into the ministry of the Christian dispensation." * And you farther explain your meaning, by saying, that "the ministry of the Jewish church, being of an unequal and three- fold character, was a type of the ministerial arrangements of the Christian church ; and from this is deduced the inference, that its ministry must necessarily be in three distinct orders ; " f that is, I suppose, the high priest, priests, and deacons, were types of bishops, priests, and deacons. Now, if the number of orders formed part of the type, and the Christian ministry be the tiling typified, it follows that there must of ne- cessity be three orders in the ministry of the Christian church. If such a relation exist be- tween the priesthood of the Old and the min- istry of the New Testament, then indeed a hierarchy is established, but not the hierarchy of the Church of England. If it be a neces- sary conclusion, that there be three orders in the Christian ministry, it is just as necessary that the highest order be confined to a single individual. Now, in this essential point the priesthood of the Jews and that of the Church of England completely differ. There is no resemblance between the type and the thing said to be typified. It may do pretty well to describe a numerous body of Levites as repre- sentatives of a numerous body of deacons, and a numerous body of priests as representatives of another numerous body of presbyters ; but how ridiculous does the contrast become, when you arrive at the climax — a single high priest representative of hundreds of metropolitans, archbishops, and bishops ! " I speak advisedly and calmly when I tell you," that if your ar- gument is sound, it is much more in favour of the papal than of the protestant hierarchy — the former, in the person of her sovereign pontiff, preserves an essential feature of the alleged type, which the latter, by her numer- ous prelates, has utterly destroyed. If your reasoning be correct, and if the grades in the christian ministry must'exactly correspond with those of the Jewish dispensation, then indeed the presbyterian system falls to the ground ; but recollect, the prelacy of England falls along with it, and the mighty fabric of Roman superstition stands in solitary magnificence. You protest, indeed, that you do not at pre- sent contend for the papal hierarchy; but you must undoubtedly go the whole way, if you intend to be consistent.* Hut you say, " Christ delegated his office." This, sir, is a most dangerous error: it strikes at the root of a most important doctrine — the universal headship of our Lord Jesus Christ So far was he from delegating * Sermon9 on the Church, p. 44. + Page |8& ♦ Mr. Dodwell, an eminent supporter of the prelatiral scheme, maintained that the government of the church was originally a l'apacy,and that the system waschang- ed in the second century. his office as the only lawgiver of his church, and the universal Shepherd and Bishop of souls, to one or to many, that for any to pre- tend that they have a right to exercise his office, is a daring usurpation of his incommu- nicable authority. It is this arrogant as- sumption by him of Rome, against which our fathers raised their solemn protest, and it is this which is thought by many to be the dis- tinguishing characteristic of Antichrist. Long have the advocates of popery insisted that Christ delegated his office to their sovereign ruler ; and you now put in the same claim for the prelates of the Church of England. — Far be it from scriptural bishops to demand the exercise of an authority so unwarrantable. This idea of the orders of the priesthood in Israel being types of a mere human priest- hood, is totally erroneous. " It is easy," you say, " to meet this argument by a sweeping as- sertion :" — very true. This is precisely the course I have taken. But, you should have added, it was a " sweeping assertion " of the. apostle Paul. In Heb. iii. 1, "he expressly calls our Lord Jesus Christ the High Priest of our profession ;" and thus, with a " sweeping assertion," he teaches that the prelates of Eng- land look in vain for a representative in the high priest of Israel. Your views appear to have been happily im- proved by my former reference to the words of the apostle, for you now grant that " the Lord Jesus Christ is the true and admitted an- titype of the chief minister of Israel. He was and is to his present church, what the high priest was to his former church — its inter- cessor, its efficient sacrificer, its head. The analogy in this respect is perfect ;" and permit me to add, that on every other supposition it is totally absurd and inconclusive. Let me suggest a few reflections, to show the folly of the parallel which you, retailing the thread-bare and oft-refuted arguments of former prelatists, have attempted to draw be- tween the orders of the Levitical priesthood and the Christian ministry. And first of all, observe that a comparison between the rank and office of the ministry of the Old Testament and that of the New, is never drawn in the Scriptures. There is not a single passage to be found in the whole of the sacred volume, which gives the least hint that such a likeness or analogy does or ought to exist. If the one was intended to be the exact pattern of the other, is it not most unaccountable that no- thing should be said upon the subject? I men- tioned formerly another fact, which as " a learned churchman " I expected you to ex- plain, namely, that the term expressing the office of priests, which was constantly applied to the priesthood of the law, is never given to the ministers of the gospel. Christ is fre- quently called " a Priest," " The High Priest," but these appellations are never bestowed up- on his ministers.* Now, such language is per- * The application of the term " priests" to christian ministers is evidently improper. 1 he great atonement having been offered on the cross, there are now no more 86 NO ARGUMENT FOR PRELACY FROM THE JEWISH POLITY. fectly natural, if we allow the apostle Paul to be a safe instructor. But, taking your hypo- thesis, how is it to be accounted for that the appropriate title of the priesthood was applied to types and shadows, and never was given to the priests who are said to be the substance represented by them ? Again, consider for a moment the special duties of the high priest of Israel, and try how far the analogy can be traced between these and the duties reserved for the ecclesiastical dignitaries of England. Was the sole government of the church vested in the high priest ? No. Did he exercise dis- cipline on his own authority ? No. Was it his special right to excommunicate the break- ers of the law ? No. Did he ordain other priests to their office ? No. Did he confirm the people ? No. On the other hand, in what respect do the peculiar functions of modern bishops correspond with those of the high priest? Is there anything analogous in their duties to the offering up of the yearly sacrifice on the day of atonement? No. Have they alone the special privilege of entering the im- mediate presence of Jehovah? No. If you have talent enough to discover, in the peculiar offices of the high priest, any thing that deser ves to be called a type of the peculiar duties allotted to prelates in these days, you can never be at a loss for a type and antitype. Their privileges and functions are so completely dif- ferent, that to make one the pattern of the other, is to cast an air of ridicule over the whole system of typical ordinances. Once more, if the Christian ministry be prefigured by the Levitical priesthood, then they offer the true sacrifices for sin of which the sacrifices under the law were types. This is not a forced inference, for it is drawn by yourself: " We have the orders of the Jewish church carried into the Christian, the rites and sacrifices of Judaism substantially conveyed into Christianity,"* The priest's office was typical, and whoever is the real priest, offers the real sacrifice. The apostle Paul asserts that Christ is our Priest, and that he has put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. But pre- lacy insists, that the priests under the law were types of its ministers, and therefore they must ofl'er the true sacrifice for sin. Both these views cannot be correct, the same type cannot sacrificing priestson earth, because there is now no more sacrifice for sin. It is but a poor subterfuge to which some have resorted,in their anxiety tojustify every thing, to say- that the term priest is a contraction of the word presby- ter, and that as the latter is applied in the New Testament to ministers of the gospel, the former has a kind of scrip- tural warrant. This 1 deny. The sacred office of one who ministered in the temple service is always expres- sed in the original Hebrew by a word which in the Septnagint is uniformly translated Tsosyj. This was the name in the Old Testament for a Levitical priest. Now this word is never used, in a single instance, in the New Testament, to designate a christian minister. The translators of our Bible have been faithful to the distinction which is always kept up in the original be- tween priests of the temple and ministers of the church, and accordingly they uniformly call the former "priests" and their ofGce " the priesthoods' while they carefully avoid applying these names to the latter, but call them "elders, pastors, bishops," !fc. * Letters, p. 192. signify a single high priest who offered up the true sacrifice for sin, and a bod}' of priests who offer no such sacrifice. The choice is before us, to determine whether we are to look to Christ and his sacrifice, or to the clergy of the Church of England and their ceremonies, as the substance prefigured by the Levitical priesthood and their sacrifices. And should any, in their blind devotion to prelacy, adopt the latter alternative, he will have only, as you justly say, " an argument from analogy " to support his system. We have already seen, that if your reason- ing be sound, it tends to establish the supre- macy of the Pope ; and we now find that it leads irresistibly to the sacrifice of the mass. You surrendered the most important princi- ples of the Reformation — you fairly crossed the Rubicon on your way to Rome, when you wrote the words, " We have the orders of the Jewish church carried out into the Christian — the rites and sacrifices of Judaism substanti- ally conveyed into Christianity." Permit me, Rev. sir, to observe, that your views are opposed to the principles of the apos - tie Paul, and lead to consequences subversive of the most important doctrines of the gospel. You may cling to your plea with a tenacity the more desperate, according to its weakness ; but ministers of your own church, whose ta- lents and literature are undoubted, have given their testimony against you. The learned Stillingfleet thus speaks: " It is a common mistake to think that the ministers of the gospel succeed, by way of cor- respondence and analogy, to the priests under the law, which mistake has been the founda- tion and original of many errors. For when, in the primitive church, the name of priests came to be attributed to gospel ministers, from a fair compliance (as it was then thought) of the Christians only to the name used both among Jews and Gentiles ; in process of time, corruptions increasing in the church, these names, that were used by the christians by way of analogy and accommodation, brought in the things themselves primarily intended by those names. So by the metaphorical names of priests and altars, at last came up the sacrifice of the mass, without which, they thought the names priests and altars were insignificant. This mistake, we see, runs all along through the writers of the church, as soon as the name priests was applied to the elders of the church, that they derived their succession from the priests of Aaron's order."* The following is the short but conclusive tes- timony of Whittaker : — " As there is now no sacrifice, so neither is there any priesthood."f With him the views of Sutlivie accord : " The Old Testament had one temple, many sacri- fices, orders of priests and Levites, sacred rites, and laws, which things belong not at all to the New Testament. " J Burton, professor of the- ology in Oxford, pronounces the argument that you here employ to be weak and insufficient, * lrenicum, p. 321. + De Pontiff, lib. l,c. 2. t De Pontiff, lib. i, c 8. p. 50. OFFICES OF THE TWELVE AND SEVENTY CONSIDERED. 87 and declares that he "cannot agree with those persons who derive the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, from the corresponding orders in the Jewish church. " * In the words of bishop Stillingfleet, " this mistake lias been the original and foundation of many errors." Not content with insisting upon the Jewish government in the church, men have turned communion tallies into altars, and ministers into priests. To such a degree has this judaizing spirit reached, thai teachers of the English church are actuall) to be found, at the present day, who hold up the Lord's Supper as a propitiatory sacrifice. It is hard to say when' this spirit may stop. Who can tell hut soon the ancient proposal may hi' made to ingraft all the rites of Judaism upon the Christian system ? Who can tell, hut that the announcement may soon he issued from the bosom of the Church of England, " Except ye be circumcised ye cannot he tavedf " SECT VI. THE OFFICES OF THE TWELVE AND SEVENTY CONSIDERED. Your next effort to prop up tho sinking cause is the affirmation that the twelve and seventy were of different orders. This attempt at argument is at once overturned by the fact, that I he Christian church was not organized at all during the time of our Lord upon earth. The ministry of John the Baptist, his own ministry, and that of the apostles and seventy, were intended only to prepare the way for its establishment. When our Redeemer was among them, his disciples were not separated from the Jewish church, hut were still united with it, and subject to its requirements. Our Lord himself was a member of that church, and obedient to its ceremonial institutions. He partook of the passover, observed its feasts, attended on the worship of the temple, and upon all occasions he and his disciples paid respect to the Mosaic dispensation which had not yel been superseded. The abolition of the Jewish worship and tin- typical priesthood, with the. temple services, did not take place until the death and resurrection of Christ. f Then it was, when the Holy Spirit descended from on high, that the Jewish worship and sa- crifices ceased ; and this is the era from which the commencement of the New Testament church is to be dated. It is justly stated by Sage, a writer of your own, that " the Chris tian church was not, could not, he founded, till our Lord was risen, seeing it was to be founded upon his resurrection. " J — The king- dom of heaven was not established during the time of our Lord's personal ministry; it was then only "at hand." The Christian church was not yet arranged, no system of govern- ment had yet heen put into operation, and therefore certainly there was uo prelacy. It is obvious, therefore, that no argument can he drawn, to justify the establishment of a hier- * Lectures, 99. + Col. ii, 14 — Eph. ii, 16. t Sage, Vmd. of the Principles of the Cyp. Age. e. 8, sec. <>. archy during this period. Let me remind von, sir, that your attention was expressly cal- led to this fact in ' Presbyterianism Defend- ded ; * hut, as usual, with all unanswerable arguments, it is passed unnoticed. I might content myself with this reply to your observations on this point, did not the courtesy due to an opponent induce me to no- tice ali that he imagines will make for his cause. You require proof of the similarity of their commission, which I asserted. I had thought you might have been satisfied with the proof from Scripture to which your attention was directed, in the tenth chapter of Matthew and the tenth of Luke. If you will impartially compare the commission of the twelve and the seventy, you will find that they were in all points equal in power, that there was nothing in the one class to give them superiority over the. other. The twelve were imme- diately sent forth. Mat- thew x, r >, "These twelve Jesus sent forth." The twelve were sent forth two by two. Mark, vi, 7, " And he called unto him the twelve, and he^an to send them forth by two and two." The twelve were sent forth in the most dangerous circumstances, as sheep anions wolves. Matthew x, 16, " Behold, I send you forth as sheep among wol- ves : be ye therefore wise as serpents and harmless as doves." The twelve had their commission to preach the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Matthew x, 7," And as you go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The twelve had the pow- er to work miracles. Mat- thew x, 8, " Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; freely ye have received, freely give." The twelve were sent forth with the authority of their Master, and in his name. Matt. \. 10, '< He that receiveth you receiv- ed) me ; and he that re- ceivith me, receiveth him that sent me " So were the seventy. — I.uke x, I, " After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also." So were the seventy. — l.uke X, 1, " And sent them two and two before his face." So were the seventy. — Lukex, 3, "Go your ways : behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves." So had the seventy. Luke x, 9, " And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, the kingdom of heaven is come nigh unto you." So had the seventy. — Luke x. 17, l9,"And the se- venty returned again with joy, saying. Lord, even the devils are subject to us through thy name. Behold, 1 give unto yon power to tread on serpents and scor- pions, and over all the pow- er of the enemy, and no- thins shall by any means loot you." So were tin- seventy. — Luke x, l(i, " He that hear- cth you In an th mi', and he that dbspiseth you dei-pi- silh me, and he- that despi- seth me despiseth him that sent mo." It will be seen, by comparing the above pas- sages of Scripture, that their mission exactly agreed in every circumstance. Hut you tell me, sir, that the twelve had a " superiority in extent of commission" — "when it was given them it entitled themtogotnto nil tlic world. The oilier body was sent only into those places w hither Jesus could come." j- There are two egregious errors in this state- • Tage 97. + l-ettors, p, £9. 90 THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. death of our Lord. You have ranged the field of Scripture, and travelled over the wide do- main of history from the time of Abraham to the day of Pentecost, and not a spot is to be found where prelacy can rest. Two positions, and only two, her advocates have attempted to maintain. But the veriest tyro from the ranks of presbytery, armed with the word of God, can drive them from their strongest holds, and send them flying in dis- order. While escaping from your tottering walls, to seek some other resting place, you tell me of another fortress, — you boast that its battlements are mighty, and its strength impregnable. You tell me that prelacy soon afterwards appeared in all its glory, and that " the system of the Church of England was that which obtained" not only in heaven, as you before insinuated, but " in the apostolic age."* If this be true, your cause is not quite hopeless. But after the weakness hitherto dis- covered, and the glaring blunders exposed, I can regard your confidence and boasting only as high swelling words of vanity, affecting me as little " as sounding brass or a tinkling cym- bal." SECT. VII. THE NATURE OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE CONSIDERED. In order to clear away the dust which you have attempted to throw upon the succeeding age of the gospel, it will be necessary to dwell for a moment on the peculiar office of the apostles, whom our Lord appointed to lay the foundations of his church on earth. You ap- pear to have very vague and changing ideas concerning their character and duties. In page 64 you admit the correctness of my state- ment, of the peculiar qualifications of apostles, and declare that they were such as were " not requisite" for their successors. I had supposed from this, that you had adopted my conclusion, that the apostolic office, as such, was tempo- rary, and ceased with the lives of them that held it. But proceeding onward a few pages, I find you speaking of " men who were either apostles themselves, or of the same standing as the apostles." f What is the meaning of this passage ? Were these men of the same standing with the apostles, in the exercise of authority, in speaking languages, in working miracles, and communicating miraculous gifts ? I stop not here to notice another misapplica- tion of the textjto whichl formerly adverted,but proceed to observe, that throughout the whole of your letters, you treat the apostles in a very unceremonious manner. Sometimes you re- present them in their own proper character as apostles, and with the same breath, if it suit your purpose, you call them bishops. The latter is the character in which you make them most generally to appear, though the apostles are never called " bishops" in the Scriptures. One time you have them itinerant mission- aries, at another, located diocesans. Touched • Letters, p. 63. t Luke 22—30. + Page 72. by the magic of your wand, they pass from see to see with more than rail- road rapidity; and sometimes, as in modern days, the juris- diction of the supposed prelate is suddenly en- larged by the addition of contiguous dioceses. Your expressions bear a remarkable resem- blance to some well-known public documents, that in one place announce a doctrine or a form, and then in another explain it away. So convenient and flexible are they found, that almost any thing may be drawn from them. By showing the proper character and qualifi- cations of the apostles, let me try to bring or- der out of the confusion which you have made. In churches as well as in nations, extraor- dinary circumstances required extraordinary operations. Persons of peculiar talents and powers became necessary in seasons of emer- gency. Accordingly, the wisdom of the Al- mighty provided for such cases£under~the Old Testament dispensation. Prophets were raised up from time to time, to arrange the worship and discipline of the church, and to declare with authority the will of God. These pro- phets were often priests, and sometimes, as in the case of David, they did not belong to the tribe of Levi. Lengthened periods frequently elapsed, without the appearance of any of these servants of God. They were not, therefore, of the standing and ordinary ministry. Their office was temporary ; and when the ends for which they were appointed had been effected, they were no longer necessary. A similar arrangement was adopted in the establishment of the New Testament dispensation. Apostles and evangelists, with special authority and powers, were appointed to plant the gospel in the world, and to arrange the government and discipline of the churches. That the office of the apostles, like that of the prophets of old, was temporary, will appear from a few consi- derations, to which I solicit your attention. A peculiar characteristic of the apostles was, that they were immediately commissioned by our Lord himself. I do not speak merely of their temporary mission, when they were sent to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Is- rael, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, but of the commission that was given by our Lord after his resurrection, when he com- manded them to go and teach all nations, and to " preach the gospel to every creature." As Christ was the apostle of the Father, so those whom he gave in the first place to his church, and sent forth in his name, were his apostles and immediate representatives. They were sent into the world, clothed with authority from him to destroy the kingdom of Satan, and set up the kingdom of righteousness. In this mission they so nearly resembled our Lord, that it is said, "He that receivethyou receiv- eth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me."* Not only were they im mediately commissioned by Christ, but they were personally instructed by him. "All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made • Matt, x, 40. THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE VI known unto you." * Alter the day of Pente- cost, they were under the special direction of the Holy Spirit, and spoke as he gave them utterance. Another indispensable requisite in apostles was to have seen the Lord after his rising again from the dead, and to be able to testify, from their own knowledge, the fact of his re- surrection. At the appointment of Matthias, this qualification was declared by Peter to be absolutely necessary. His language is — " of these men who have companied with us all the time that our Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. "f 'When Paul established his claim to be an apostle, he expressly de- clares that he was privileged to behold the Lord after his resurrection ; J and to this qua- lification reference is made by other apostles, as in 2 Peter, i, 16, and 1 John, i, I. Farther, their commission was different from that of an ordinary pastor ; for it was univer- sal and unlimited, " to all nations, to the utter most parts of the earth." In obedience to this command, they went forth from Jerusalem, preaching every where the tidings of the gos- pel, and establishing churches in the most dis- tant parts of the then known world. The apostle Paul speaks of the universality of his charge, when he says, " that which cometh on me daily, the care of all the churches."§ So that when you teach that the duties of apos- tles were " limited, and restricted to a parti- cular territory," || and confine, them, in the discharge of their high office, to supposed sees or particular localities, you make them act in contradiction to Christ's commission, which was given to each and all of them to go through- out the world. This commission no subse- quent arrangement of theirs could lessen or annul. The apostles were endued with the power of working miracles, of speaking in tongues with which they were formerly unacquainted ; and more than this, they were enabled to com- municate these powers to others by the impo- sition of hands, ^y The apostles also had the gift of prophecy. They explained with infal- lible certainty the Old Testament Scriptures, and foretold the events of futurity. They could discern the spirits, were enabled to dis- cover the secret workings of the heart, and to detect the most hidden dissimulation and hy- pocrisy. Connected with this was the power which they possessed to inflict remarkable judgments upon opposers of the truth.** And, in fine, they had authority to plant churches, to settle the standing and ordinary officers, and to lay down the system of discipline, doc- trine, and worship, that was afterwards to be observed. • John xv, 15. + Acti i, SI, 2.'. 1 1 Cor. xv, 7, b. J 2 Cor. xi, 58. II Sermons on the rhurch, p. 55. 11 Acts viij, 17— xix, 6. • * Act* v, 5— xiii, 8, 11. Such being the extraordinary powers with which they were invested, powers fitted and necessary for the commencement of a new dis- pensation, it is plain that their office was of temporary duration. And when any claim the exercise of spiritual authority, or when men are said to be "of the same standing as the apostles," their commission must be (ested by the same evidence j and the indispensable re- quisites of the apostolic office must be proved to belong to them. This has never since been done. Their distinguished prerogatives have not descended to any after them. Having per- formed the work appointed by him who sent them, the apostles passed away, and as such have no successors.* We have seen that the apostles were inves- ted with extraordinary powers, gifts, and cha- racter,necessary for the peculiar duties to which they were called. They were also frequently engaged in the ordinary duties of the ministry, such as the preaching of the word, dispensing the sacraments, government and ordination ; and the. power of performing these they he- stowed upon others, wherever a community of believers was collected. The church was built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- stone." Having laid the foundation of Christ's house, they committed to other builders the work of the ministry," for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ."f These ministers are to continue to the end of the world the ordinary and permanent officers. While the apostles had no successors in their extraor- dinary prerogatives and powers, yet in the performance of these functions, which are ne- cessary in every age, the preaching of the word, the dispensing of the sacraments, and governing the church, they are succeeded by every minis- ter of the gospel. When the church was pro- perly organised, they do not appear to have exercised their extraordinary powers in its government, or to have claimed any authority over their co-presbyters. Towards the close of their ministry, we find them frequently dropping the name of apostles, and calling themselves " elders." For instance, Peter calls himself by this name; J and John the beloved disciple commences his third epistle in these words, "The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius." Wherever a church was perfectly organised they acted not by themselves, but in conjunc- tion with the presbyters. You frequently taunt me with such observa- tions, as "in those days of the church there was a manifest imparity of ministers." And again, " surely you will not attempt to affirm that there was no superintendence over ministers in tho apostolic church." A person reading your letter would suppose that your opponent intended to bring down the apostles to a level with the ordinary ministers of the church, and that you alone contended for their peculiar power. But * Dodwell, bishop Davcnnnt, I ishtfoot, Harrow, Whittaker, Willet, and many other* whom I might men- tion, are ot the fame opinion. + Ephesiam, iv, 12. 5 1 Putcr, v, I. 90 THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. death of our Lord. You have ranged the field of Scripture, and travelled over the wide do- main of history from the time of Abraham to the day of Pentecost, and not a spot is to he found where prelacy can rest. Two positions, and only two, her advocates have attempted to maintain. But the veriest tyro from the ranks of presbytery, armed with the word of God, can drive them from their strongest holds, and send them flying in dis- order. While escaping from your tottering walls, to seek some other resting place, you tell me of another fortress, — you boast that its battlements are mighty, and its strength impregnable. You tell me that prelacy soon afterwards appeared in all its glory, and that " the system of the Church of England was that which obtained" not only in heaven, as you before insinuated, but " in the apostolic age."* If this be true, your cause is not quite hopeless. But after the weakness hitherto dis- covered, and the glaring blunders exposed, I can regard your confidence and boasting only as high swelling words of vanity, affecting me as little " as sounding brass or a tinkling cym- bal." SECT. VII. THE NATURE OF THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE CONSIDERED. In order to clear away the dust which you have attempted to throw upon the succeeding age of the gospel, it will be necessary to dwell for a moment on the peculiar office of the apostles, whom our Lord appointed to lay the foundations of his church on earth. You ap- pear to have very vague and changing ideas concerning their character and duties. In page 64 you admit the correctness of my state- ment, of the peculiar qualifications of apostles, and declare that they were such as were " not requisite" for their successors. I had supposed from this, that you had adopted my conclusion, that the apostolic office, as such, was tempo- rary, and ceased with the lives of them that held it. But proceeding onward a few pages, I find you speaking of " men who were either apostles themselves, or of the same standing as the apostles." f What is the meaning of this passage ? Were these men of the same standing with the apostles, in the exercise of authority, in speaking languages, in working miracles, and communicating miraculous gifts ? I stop not here to notice another misapplica- tion of the textjto whichl formerly adverted,but proceed to observe, that throughout the whole of your letters, you treat the apostles in a very unceremonious manner. Sometimes you re- present them in their own proper character as apostles, and with the same breath, if it suit your purpose, you call them bishops. The latter is the character in which you make them most generally to appear, though the apostles are never called " bishops" in the Scriptures. One time you have them itinerant mission- aries, at another, located diocesans. Touched • Letters, p. 63. t Luke 22—30. + Page 72. by the magic of your wand, they pass from see to see with more than rail-road rapidity; and sometimes, as in modern days, the juris- diction of the supposed prelate is suddenly en- larged by the addition of contiguous dioceses. Your expressions bear a remarkable resem- blance to some well-known public documents, that in one place announce a doctrine or a form, and then in another explain it away. So convenient and flexible are they found, that almost any thing may be drawn from them. By showing the proper character and qualifi- cations of the apostles, let me try to bring or- der out of the confusion which you have made. In churches as well as in nations, extraor- dinary circumstances required extraordinary operations. Persons of peculiar talents and powers became necessary in seasons of emer- gency. Accordingly, the wisdom of the Al- mighty provided for such cases^under^the Old Testament dispensation. Prophets were raised up from time to time, to arrange the worship and discipline of the church, and to declare with authority the will of God. These pro- phets were often priests, and sometimes, as in the case of David, they did not belong to the tribe of Levi. Lengthened periods frequently elapsed, without the appearance of any of these servants of God. They were not, therefore, of the standing and ordinary ministry. Their office was temporary ; and when the ends for which they were appointed had been effected, they were no longer necessary. A similar arrangement was adopted in the establishment of the New Testament dispensation. Apostles and evangelists, with special authority and powers, were appointed to plant the gospel in the world, and to arrange the government and discipline of the churches. That the office of the apostles, like that of the prophets of old, was temporary, will appear from a few consi- derations, to which I solicit your attention. A peculiar characteristic of the apostles was, that they were immediately commissioned by our Lord himself. I do not speak merely of their temporary mission, when they were sent to preach to the lost sheep of the house of Is- rael, that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, but of the commission that was given by our Lord after his resurrection, when he com- manded them to go and teach all nations, and to " preach the gospel to every creature." As Christ was the apostle of the Father, so those whom he gave in the first place to his church, and sent forth in his name, were his apostles and immediate representatives. They were sent into the world, clothed with authority from him to destroy the kingdom of Satan, and set up the kingdom of righteousness. In this mission they so nearly resembled our Lord, that it is said, " He that receivethyou receiv- eth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me."* Not only were they im mediately commissioned by Christ, but they were personally instructed by him. "All things that I have heard of my Father, I have made » Matt, i, 40. THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE 91 known unto you." * After the day of Pente- cost, they were under the special direction of the Holy Spirit, and spoke as he gave them utterance. Another indispensable requisite in apostles was to have seen the Lord after his rising again from the dead, and to be able to testify, from their own knowledge, the fact of his re- surrection. At the appointment of Matthias, this qualification was declared by Peter to be absolutely necessary. His language is — " of these men who have companicd with us all the time that our Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection."f When Paul established his claim to be an apostle, he expressly de- clares that he was privileged to behold the Lord after his resurrection ; J and to this qua- lification reference is made by other apostles, as in 2 Peter, i, 16, and 1 John, i, 1. Farther, their commission was different from that of an ordinary pastor ; for it was univer- sal and unlimited, " to all nations, to the utter most parts of the earth." In obedience to this command, they went forth from Jerusalem, preaching every where the tidings of the gos- pel, and establishing churches in the most dis- tant parts of the then known world. The apostle Paul speaks of the universality of his charge, when he says, " that which cometh on me daily, the care of all the churches."§ So that when you teach that the duties of apos- tles were " limited, and restricted to a parti- cular territory," || and confine them, in the discharge of their high office, to supposed sees or particular localities, you make them act in contradiction to Christ's commission, which was given to each and all of them to go through- out the world. This commission no subse- quent arrangement of theirs could lessen or annul. The apostles were endued with the power of working miracles, of speaking in tongues with which they were formerly unacquainted ; and more than this, they were enabled to com- municate these powers to others by th^ impo- sition of hands. ^[ The apostles also had the gift of prophecy. They explained with infal- lible certainty the Old Testament Scriptures, and foretold the events of futurity. They could discern the spirits, were enabled to dis- cover the secret workings of the heart, and to detect the most hidden dissimulation and hy- pocrisy. Connected with this was the power which they possessed to inflict remarkable judgments upon opposers of the truth.** And, in fine, they had authority to plant churches, to settle the standing and ordinary officers, and to lay down the system of discipline, doc- trine, and worship, that was afterwards to be observed. * John xv, 15. + Actsi, 21,22. t 1 Cor. iv, 7, b. i 2 Cor. xi, 28. II Sermons on the church, p. 65. 51 Acts viii, 17— xix, 6. • * Acts v, 5— xiii,8, 11. Such being the extraordinary powers with which they were invested, powers fitted and necessary for the commencement of a new dis- pensation, it is plain that their office was of temporary duration. And when any claim the exercise of spiritual authority, or when men are said to be " of the same standing as the apostles," their commission must be tested by the same evidence ; and the indispensable re- quisites of the apostolic office must be proved to belong to them. This has never since been done. Their distinguished prerogatives have not descended to any after them. Having per- formed the work appointed by him who sent them, the apostles passed away, and as such have no successors.* We have seen that the apostles were inves- ted with extraordinary powers, gifts, and cha- racter,necessary for the peculiar duties to which they were called. They were also frequently engaged in the ordinary duties of the ministry, such as the preaching of the word, dispensing the sacraments, government and ordination ; and the. power of performing these they be- stowed upon others, wherever a community of believers was collected. The church was built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner- stone." Having laid the foundation of Christ's house, they committed to other builders the work of the ministry," for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ."f These ministers are to continue to the end of the world the ordinary and permanent officers. While the apostles had no successors in their extraor- dinary prerogatives and powers, yet in the performance of these functions, which are ne- cessary in every age, the preaching of the word, the dispensing of the sacraments, and governing the church, they are succeeded by every minis- ter of the gospel. When the church was pro- perly organised, they do not appear to hare exercised their extraordinary powers in its government, or to have claimed any authority over their co-presbyters. Towards the close of their ministry, we find them frequently dropping the name of apostles, and calling themselves " elders." For instance, Peter calls himself by this name ;l and John the beloved disciple commences his third epistle in these words, "The elder unto the well-beloved Gaius." Wherever a church was perfectly organised they acted not by themselves, but in conjunc- tion with the presbyters. You frequently taunt me with such observa- tions, as "in those days of the church there was a manifest imparity of ministers." And again, "surely you will not attempt to affirm that there was no superintendence over ministers in tho apostolic church." A person reading your letter would suppose that your opponent intended to bring down the apostles to a level with the ordinary ministers of the church, and that you alone contended for their peculiar power. But • Dodwell, bishop Davcimnt, I ightfoot, Barrow, Whittakcr, Willet, und many others whom I might meu- tion, are of the same opinion. + Ephesiam, iv, 12. » 1 Peter, v, 1. 92 THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. who, I ask, ever denied their superiority ? So far from doing this, I had hefore expressly as- serted it. * The apostles were indeed superior officers of the church. But is prelacy thereby established? By no means. The explana- tion is simple. In the case to which you have referred, they acted as apostles, and apostles have no successors. Having thus prepared the way for consider- ing the state of the church in the apostolic age, I proceed to mention some facts that render it. highly probable that no such order of officers as prelates could have existed in apostolic times — facts so striking and conclusive as almost to render any farther inquiry totally unnecessary. In the first place, it is a fact, that the powers said to belong exclusively to modern bishops are clearly attributed in the Scriptures to pres- byters. I am fortunate in having your own statement regarding these powers. " The view of the Church of England vests the admhiis tration in the hands of her bishops, f Accor- ding to her ideas they possess the 'potestas jurisdictionis' and the ' potestas ordinis,' the pre- rogative of government, as well as the exclusive privilege of ordaining."J Now, in opposition to this, there is abundant Scripture evidence that the power of government was not confined to a supposed superior order of ministers, but was attributed to presbyters, and was actually exercised by them. There are three terms employed in the New Testament to express the exercise of authority in the church, and they aro all predicated of presbyters. They sig- nify respectively, "to stand before " or "to pre- side," "to take the lead," " to feed " or "perform the duties of shepherd." The first term,§ which signifies to stand be- fore, or to preside, is applied to presbyters in 1 Thess. v, 12: " We beseech you, brethren, to know them that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord." || The system of dio- cesan episcopacy admits of but one prelate in one city, but here are a number of pastors all rulers, and all labouring among the people of their charge. Again we have, 1 Timothy v, 1 7 — " The elders or presbyters that rule well." ^ The apostle here attributes the power of " ru- ling" to presbyters, which I conceive is " the prerogative of government." There is no escape for you by saying that the terms pres- byters and bishops were applied originally to ministers generally, but that the, offices were distinct. For the sacred writers must mean by presbyters either officers distinct from pre- lates, or they must use the term to include prelates also. If they do the former, then my * Presliyterianism Defended, page 80. t It may be u the view of the Church of England to vest the administration in the hands of her bishops," but it certainly is not her practice. Delegates, lay rhaucellors. Commissaries, &c, sit in her ecclesiastical courts, and pronounce judgment in spiritual matteis, though never ordain«d or consecrated at all. Where is the Scripture authority for their doings ? J Letter*, page 185. || Hgo'/crTXfAivovs v/jcuv if Kvo'iv. ^[ 0/ naXZs ir^oiirvuri}. point is established ; and if the latter, then presbyters are united with prelates in ruling the church, and what becomes of the exclusive prerogative of government ? The second term,* the meaning of which is " to take the lead," is applied to presbyters in Heb. xiii, 7 : " Remember them, (observe the plurality of elders in the church at Jerusalem,) which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God." f Verse 17, " Obey them that have the rule over yon,J for they watch for your souls as they that must give account." From these texts, it is evident that those whose spiritual duty it was to preach the word and to watch for souls, were at the same time rulers in the church. We find the third term,§ signifying " to feed," or " to perform the duties of a shepherd," ap- plied to presbyters in Acts xx, 17 — 28 : " And from Miletus Paul sent to Ephesus and called the presbyters of the church." — " Take heed therefore unto yourselves and to all the flock over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops, to feed, or rule,|| the church of God." 1 Peter v, 1 — 3, " The presbyters who are among you I exhort, who am also a pres- byter. Feed^f the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight ** thereof,not by con- straint, but willingly ; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." Here it is evident that presbyters were en- trusted with all the duties of the pastoral office, without any exception. In the passage quoted from Peter they are warned not to be " lords over God's heritage ; " that is, not to rule as despots in the church. But these words will have no meaning if there were officers superior to them who had the exclu- sive right of government. Where would be the use of exhorting presbyters against the abuse of a power which they did not possess ? It is impossible to show any higher authority to belong to prelates, than that which is here expressly attributed to presbyters. But I go farther ; not only was the power of government attributed to presbyters, but they actually exercised that power even du- ring the lifetime of the apostles. The ques- tion which arose in the Church of Antioch as to the propriety of retaining the institutions of Moses, was referred to the apostles and elders at Jerusalem. Deputies were sent from the different churches to this venerable assembly. You will observe, the presbyters shared in the deliberations that were held. How is it pos- sible to conceive that the Church of Antioch should refer a matter of so great importance to the elders or presbyters, hi conjunction with * Hyiofiat -f- Tuv riyovfitt/av Vfiuv. + Tots iyovfiivois npuv. § Jloi.uaivui. || lJoi/u,a!vtiv. This word is translated " rule" In se- veral places in the New Testament, such as in Matt ii, 6 ; Rev. ii, 27 ; xii, 5 ; xix, 15. ^f Woi/xavciTl. ** Evtrxoiriivris, discharging the office cf bishops. THE APOSTOLIC OFFICE. 98 the apostles, if it had not heen generally un- derstood that they were then the ordinary gov- ernors of the church ? The apostles acted on the occasion as members of the Synod, and not in their extraordinary character as apos- tles. Had they acted in the latter capacity, any one of them could have decided the sub- ject in debate by declaring the express will of the Almighty : but they reasoned the matter with the other members of the council, who joined with them in the decision. We see therefore that presbyters were not only autho- rized to rule, but did actually exercise "the prerogative of government" in the apostolic age, and in conjunction with the apostles themselves. That it was long before presbyters inglori- ously bowed their necks to the yoke of prelacy — that they possessed and exercised the power of jurisdiction for ages after this period, is abun- dantly verified by the early writers of the church. And I beg you to observe that their testi7nonies upon this general practice are vastly more worthy of credit than the lists of bishops, said to be found among the writings of the fathers. Synesius * and Chrysostom f style them " the court or Sanhedrim of the presbyters ; " and Cyprian, + " The sacred and venerable bench of the clergy." Jerome § and others, " the churches' senate and the senate of Christ." I shall have occasion afterwards to refer more fully to the testimony of Cyprian upon the point. So plain are the rights of presbyters to take part in the government of the church, that some of j - our own brethren are even now writhing in their chains, and struggling to break them. Enamoured as you appear to be with slavery, you may have no sympathy with the sentiments they express. Nevertheless I will present you with a few extracts from a late publica- cation,|j which show the feeling that is begin- ning to prevail among the ministers of the English Establishment. " Legislators regard us [presbyters] as mere servants of the state, and they look upon the bishops as magistrates appointed to keep us in order. This, too, is per- haps the view generally taken by those of the clergy who are designated low-churchmen. They look upon themselves as ministers em- ployed by the government, and placed by the same government under the control of certain other ministers who have high secular rank conferred upon them."*] " Wo [presbyters] have rights of spiritual jurisdiction conferred upon us, as sacred as those of the bishop himself, who, if he invades those rights, incurs the guilt which is incurred by any other usurper." ** " If we go to the highest authority, that of Scripture, we find that we are designated as rulers of the church by the Spirit of God * Epistle G7 ad Thcoph. p. 209." + Chrysost. de Sacerdot. lib. iii. c. 15. t Epist.65, alol) ad Cornel, { Hieron. in lesa, vol. v. p. in. II Presbyterian lights Asserted, by a presbyter of the Cblircfa of England, London, 1H3D. V Page 5. *« Page 13. himself. 1 Tim. v, 17. If we go to the next authority, to the Epistles of St. Ignatius, we find, that highly as the episcopate is exalted, as great things are said of the presbyterate." * " As Bingham remarks : ' St. Ignatius al- ways joins bishop and presbyters together.' Thus Ep. ad Ephes. n. 2, he bids them be sub- ject to the bishop and presbytery. Ep. ad Magnet, n. G, he commends Latian the deacon because ' he was subject to the bishop as the gift of God, and to the presbytery as the law of Christ.' Ep. ad Trail. It. 2, he bids them ' be subject t; the presbytery as to the apos- tles of Jesus Christ.' " f " If I shall succeed in arousing my breth- ren of the presbyterate to a sense of their au- thority and their rights, so as to induce them respectfully to demand the observance of them from their bishops, I shall have done the church some service. For, as Mr. Palmer, a high authority, observes — « The wealth and temporal power of bishops during the middle ages may have induced some of the ignorant to suppose that presbyters were exceedingly inferior to bishops ; but the catholic church, which sees with the eye of faith, as she ac- knowledges the same sacred dignity of priest- hood in every bishop, whether oppressed with extreme poverty, or whether invested with princely dignity and wealth, also views the greatness and sanctity of the office of presby- ter as little inferior to those even of the chief pastors who succeed the apostles.' "\ With regard to the exclusive privilege of or- daining, which, you say, " according to the ideas of the Church of England, is in the hands of her bishops," I hope you arc satisfied from the preceding letter, and from my observations on the ordination at Antioch, that they are only " ideas " of that church, and have no countenance from Scripture. I will only ob- serve, in addition to what has gone before, that the authority given "to feed the Hock of God " includes the arrangement of all things neces- sary to the permanence and well-being of the church, as well as the power of ordination. Our Lord is the chief Shepherd, and an im- portant part of his office, in that capacity, is to provide, from one generation to another, pas- tors for his people. At first this was done by himself in person. But now, having " as- cended up on high," he performs this office by the instrumentality of the ministers he has left in his church. The question is, to what ministers he has intrusted the power of or- daining other ministers, and thus preserving a succession of teachers and rulers in the church ? I answer, to presbyters, for he applies to their office the very term§ which describes his own power to rule in the church and to provide it with teachers. Where did the divine Re- deemer, or any of his inspired servants, ever attribute a similar power to such officers as prelates in the Church of England ? Until I had been furnished, in your letter, * Page 15. + Page 16. t Page 38. § IIo^aH/Wlatt. ii,G, &c. 94 THE APOSTOLIC OFFrCE. with an account of the peculiar duties of the hishops of the Church of England, I had thought that there were other powers which were exclusively their own, such as the conse- cration of mortar, stones, and timber, in pub- lic buildings, the confirming of children and making holy clay in burying grounds. These ceremonies, being avowedly of human appoint- ment, it is quite right that they should be per- formed by officers of human invention. Making no claim to these rites, we leave it among your- selves to decide who shall have the exclusive privilege of performing them, and to consider whether it is scriptural to perform them at all. I proceed now to mention another fact that goes far to establish the conclusion that no such class of officers as prelates was to be found in the apostolic age, and this is, that they are never once mentioned in the Scrip- tures. Your attention was called to this fact in ' Presbyterianism Defended ; ' * I looked for an explanation, but in vain. Like all serious difficulties ithas been passed unnoticed. Had the hierarchy been established by our Lord, we cannot but think he would have dis- tinctly mentioned it. His commission to the prelates would have run thus : " Go, govern the churches, ordain priests, consecrate build- ings, " and not " Go, preach the gospel to every creature, teach all nations, baptizing them, " &c. Had the apostles established it, we might have expected that they would have de- scribed exactly the qualifications, titles, ordi- nation, and duties of these superior officers. But so far from this being the case, we never find these orders, bishops, presbyters, and dea- cons, mentioned together ; but only bishops and deacons, as in Philip, i. 1, and 1 Timothy iii. Nor do we find in Scripture any ordination to the office of a bishop different from the ordi- nation of a presbyter. Nor do we find the specification of any duty charged upon a bishop from which presbyters are restrained ; nor any qualifications required in a bishop that are not requisite in a presbyter. Look at the epistles of the apostle Paul. Had prelacy been the system that he approved of and enjoined, there surely would have been some trace of it in his writings. In his various addresses to the dif- ferent churches there would have been some- thing addressed specially to this high officer. You will observe that he gives very minute di- rections to Christians in the various ranks of life. He carefully distinguishes between pres- byters and deacons, and describes their dis- tinctive duties and qualifications. So par- ticular are Iris instructions, that he addresses rich and poor, husbands and wives, masters and servants, upon the duties which they owe to each other, and in many cases he addresses men and women expressly by name. Yet, all this time he is silent regarding the prelates of the churches ; he never addresses a syllable to them, never hints at their existence, and never speaks of their exclusive rights and privileges. The complete silence of Scripture affords, in » Page 120. my mind, positive and conclusive evidence that no such officers as modern bishops were to be found in the apostolic age. Yet, strange to say, the divine right of prelacy is boldly urged. These officers, who are no where to be found in God's word, are declared to be essential to the existence of the church. Without them there can be no ordination, no ministry, no sacraments, and no salvation. Now, can it be believed that a matter so essentially important, should not be laid down in Scripture with the clearest evidence ? Might we not expect it to be as plainly and frequently taught as the doc- trine of Christ's sacrifice for sin ? When the duties which we owe to supreme civil rulers are clearly defined, might we not suppose that obedience to diocesan bishops would certainly be commanded ? Surely, if the high and ex- clusive claims of prelacy be well founded, whatever else was left in doubt, the prerogative of bishops would be again and again enforced in the plainest and most decided manner. Yet this is far from being the case. The testimony that you and your brethren bring forward is in no one instance direct and plain, but all in direct and inferential. You do not pretend to quote a single passage of Scripture which de- clares, in so many words, or any thing like it, in favour of the claim of prelates ; but your whole dependence is placed on analog\ r , and deductions from facts and suppositions, which many, even of your own church, pronounce to be utterly unavailing. Now, I ask, can any man of intelligence suppose that our Lord and his apostles considered prelacy of such para- mount importance, that they viewed it as modern high churchmen tell us it ought to be viewed, and yet left it, to say the least, dark and uncertain ? He that can bring himself to believe all this, is a most extraordinary speci- men of prejudice^.and bigotry. One other fact, and I pass on. The presby- terian system does not rest alone upon deduc- tion and analogy. The leading features of it are plainly exhibited in the New Testament Scriptures. Do you ask why we do not permit one minister to assume authority over another? We point to the command of our Lord, prohi- biting the exercise of such authority. Do you ask why we apply different names to the same class of officers in the church ? We reply, because the apostles have set us the example, and we do not pretend to be wiser than they. Do you ask our warrant for ordination by pres- byters ? We point to the example of the pro- phets and teachers of Antioch, and to that of the presbytery by whom Timothy was ordained. Do you ask why the ordinary ministers of the church exercise the prerogative of govern- ment? We tell you, that presbyters were " rulers " of the church ; and we remind you of the deputies sent to the synod of Jerusalem by the church of Antioch, and of their forming constituent members of the assembly. And we could give you also examples of presby- ters exercising the power of discipline * — a * 1 Cor. v, 4, 5, 11— Titus, iii, 10. ALLEGED PRELACY OF JAMES DISPROVED. 95 power which you do not mention as belonging to any of the various grades of ministers in your church. We can thus exhibit the leading features of our system plainly pourtrayed in the sacred volume, and point to the model of our constitution in the churches of the apos- tolic age. Is not the conclusion legitimate, that prelacy grew up in after times ? Seeing, then, that presbyters enjoyed and exercised those powers that, " according to the ideas" of the Church of England, belong ex- clusively to an order superior to them, that no mention of prelates is made either by our Lord or his apostles, and that the system of presbytery, in its various parts, is expressly- sanctioned by the word of God, it is for you, in the face of all these considerations, to es- tablish the divine right of the hierarchy. As you have undertaken to show, that within the apostolic age and under apostolic superinten- dence episcopacy assumed a diocesan character, your facts must not only be plausible, your deductions must not only exhibit the power of imagination, but must accord with the lan- guage and narrative of the New Testament ; they must be so plain as to overturn the fore- going difficulties, and must not admit of expla- nation upon presbyterian principles. With such facts you profess to furnish me, and to their examination I now willingly proceed. SECT. VIII. — THE ALLEGED PRELACY OF JAMES DISPROVED. You inform me, that " the church of Jeru- salem was governed by a resident diocesan bishop." * This, I think, will be rather diffi- cult to show, after the evidence we have already had, that no such officer existed in the apos- tolic age. It has often been said, that " drown- ing men will catch at straws ; " and you ex- emplify the truth of this saying in a remark- able degree. A more weak and frivolous ar- gument, if argument it can be called, is seldom to be met with, even in your productions. But let us hear the astounding fact, that is to sweep away all the evidence we have thought so con- vincing. It is this. Peter requested an ac- count of his release from prison to be sent to James; therefore James was bishop of Jeru- salem. Paul and his company went to the house of James, and found the elders there ; therefore James was a diocesan bishop. James was the last speaker at an ecclesiastical as- sembly ; therefore he was superior to all the others present, and of course prelate of Jeru- salem. This is absolutely the whole of the scriptural argument for the prelacy of James. Surely, a more singular instance of gratuitous assumption of what ought to be proved was never exhibited. But lest I should be thought to misrepresent, I give your own words: — " In the. twelfth chapter, Peter, declaring his liberation from prison, commands his auditors to ' go and show these things unto James ;md to the brethren.' May I ask, why James is here particularly mentioned, if he and the * letters, p. (u. brethren were equal ? Again, it is written, that upon his return from a missionary circuit, ' Paul went in with us unto James, and all the elders were present.' In this passage James is clearly distinguished from the other minis- ters of the church of Jerusalem." * Are you really serious, in calling this evidence that James was the diocesan bishop and prelate of Jerusalem ? I can hardly think so. If you will take my advice, never bring forward these texts again in support of prelacy ; for they go far beyond the purpose you have in hand. They prove, according to you, that James was not only superior to the brethren, but also to the other apostles who were at Jerusalem. And mark the consequence of your interpre- tation, when applied to similar expressions in the New Testament. We read in Gal. ii, 9, "James, John, and Cephas, appeared to be pillars ; " and in Mark xvi, 7, we have the words of the angel, " Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee." What is to prevent a Romanist adopting your words ? " May I ask why Peter is here particularly mentioned, if he and the brethren were equal ? In this passage Peter is clearly distinguished from the other ' disciples and apostles.'" Who would have thought that Mr. Boyd, in his zeal to place James on the episcopal throne, would have become a cham- pion for the supremacy of Peter? According to your plan, Peter may be shewn to have been bishop of Jerusalem ; for Paul says, (Gal. 1, 18,) that he "went up to Jerusa- lem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." Peter was then a permanent resident, and James was at Jerusalem at the same time, as appears from the following verse. If dio- cesan episcopacy prevailed at Jerusalem, by your reasoning, Peter must have been the bi- shop, and that during the lifetime of James. But you have put forward another plea. You tell me — " James is represented as de- livering the decision of the council" at Jeru- salem. Roman Catholics argue that Peter was the prince of the apostles, because he spoke first upon this occasion ; but you insist that James was clothed with " authority," and pos- sessed " official dignity " as prelate of Jerusa- lem, because he spoke last. Even supposing — of which, however, there is not the shadow of proof — that James presided, for the sake of order, there is nothing in this circumstance to elevate him above the other members of the synod, more than a chairman is raised above the members of any public assembly. The moderator of our synod is the organ of the body, iind is accustomed to announce its de- terminations ; but he is not, upon that account, the bishop of the province. The indications of the dignity of James are by no means so remarkable as you pronounce them to be. Where is the evidence of his ordaining and governing alone, which are the exclusive pri- vileges of prelates in modern times? None is offered. On the contrary, even on your own showing, presbyters were united with him in • Letter* p. 67. 96 ALLEGED PRELACY OF JAMES DISPROVED. the government of the church, a prerogative which, " according to the ideas " of the Church of England, belongs to prelates alone. I perceive that my interpretation of the original word,* used by James, has given you dissatisfaction. At the same time, I hardly think you so seriously offended as you seem, since it has afforded such a noble opportunity for a display of your critical powers. There appears, however, to have been some change passing on your views since you first appeared in print. In the ' Sermons on the Church, ' you told your audience that it was /; is (James's) decision ; " f and you come to this conclusion, in opposition to what you then acknowledged to be the recorded opinion of a most eminent critical authority, Dr. Bloomtield. No wonder you felt that it was " highly presumptuous in you, in disregard of such an opinion, to build a proof upon the expression, "t Let rae re- mind you, that on this point you not only differ from that " eminent critical authority, " Dr. Bloom field ; but also, as I have shown, § from Dr. Blomfield, the present bishop of London. Strange that such a stickler for prelacy would not showgreater respectfor the episcopal bench, than to spurn away the opinion of one of its highest dignitaries, with as little ceremony as the interpretation of an humble presbyterian minister. Passing on, in the ' Sermons on the Church,' I find you asserting, not as before, that it was, " James's decision," but that " the apostles and elders issued this decree ;"|| and now you tell me, that it was " the decision of the council, "^f It is highly probable, that many, dazzled with the bright display of lite- rature, may not have been able to follow these various evolutions. No doubt, you calculated upon this. It is cruel to break in upon your complacency, and to spoil the grand exhibition you have made. Considering the airy phan- toms with which you have to deal, I am in- clined to grant the utmost latitude to your movements. But it is drawing too much upon my courtesy, to expect that I can allow you to take the same passage of Scripture, and inter- pret it different ways, to serve different pur- poses. You justly suspect yourself of the crime of "high presumption; " and I must add to the indictment the charge of " glaring incon- sistency. " The only view that can avail you any thing is, that the decision was that of James alone. And lest, for the sake of maintaining your point, you should think of coming round to it again, I will show in a few words its utter ab- surdity. First, It could not have been the decision of James, because the case was not referred to him, but to " the [apostles and elders," who came as deputies from various places to form a general council of the church. Seco7id, The decision was received and acted upon throughout the churches of Asia, which * Kg/mi. + T.ige 5-5. t Sermons on the Church, p. 190. 5 Presbyterianism Defended, p. 12C. II Page 135. V Letters, p. G8. would not have been the case, had it been is- sued only by the bishop of Jerusalem. Anti- och was far beyond his jurisdiction, unless we adopt the theory of Dr. Hammond, that James was primate of all Palestine and Syria. If this be true, it may tend to show that there ought to be metropolitans ; but it has nothing to do with diocesan bishops. Third, To say that it was " his decision, " flatly contradicts the sacred historian ; for in the following chap- ter we are told by Paul and Silas, that " the decrees were ordained, of the apostles and elders. " (xvi. 4.) * That James was not prelate of Jerusalem will appear from two considerations. Subse- quently to this period, the apostle Paul ad- dressed an epistle to the Hebrews, yet we find that he does not direct it to the supposed bi- shop of the diocese, nor does he in any way recognise the existence or authority of such a personage. On the contrary, he speaks of a plurality of governors in the church at Jeru- salem, and exhorts the believers there to obey them that have the rule over them, &c. f Again, James was an apostle. His commis- sion in that capacity was " to go to all the world," and therefore to fix him down to a particular locality, is to degrade him from the apostolic office. Dr. Barrow very justly ar- gues, with regard to the apostle Peter, " It would not have beseemed St. Peter, the prime apostle, to assume the charge of a particular bishop. It had been a degradation of himself, and a disparagement of the apostolical majes- ty, for him to take upon him the bishopric of Rome." — " Wherefore 'tis not likely that St. Peter, being sensible of that superior charge belonging to him, which would exact a more extensive care, would vouchsafe to undertake an inferior charge, as if a sovereign prince should become a justice of the peace," J and I may add, as if the primate of all Ireland should become rector of Macosquin, or the lord lieutenant of the kingdom, the mayor of * The original word (Kplva), used by James in the council ot Jerusalem, means nothing more than the re- sult of reflection or the expression of opinion, and might have been employed with equal propriety by any mem- ber of the court. In reference to your flourish of criti. cism, in Letters, page68, 1 have to observe that Schleus. ner, whom you adduce as on your side, admits that this word has the meaning that 1 attashed to it— a circum- stance of which I think you must have been ignorant, perhaps from not having seen the original. You lay great stress upon the opinion of Chrysostom, a father of the fifth century, "one to whom the Greek language was a mother tongue ;" but Irenajus, a much earlier writer, a father of the second century, interprets the language of James exactly in the manner that I have done. The greater part of his work against heresies, though written originally in Greek, is now extant only ina/.atin version, and from what remains of theGreek, it is evident that the Latin interpreter has taken frequent opportunity to give a prelatical colouring to his inter- pretation. It so happens, however, that the view taken by Irenamsof the meaning of James, and acknowledged even by his translator, is opposed to that taken of St. Chrysostom and Mr. Boyd. Irenaeus (Lib. iii, cap. 2, p. '232. Fol.ed.Oxford,1702),describes James as thus speak, ing, " I'ropterea ego secundum me judico," that is " Wherefore 1 judge in as far as I am concerned.'" + Heb. xiii,7, J7. t Barrow on the Pope's Supremacy. ALLEGED PRELACY OF JAMES DISPROVED. 09 Deny. The observations of Dr. Harrow apply with equal force to the case of James, and show ilmi tin' arrangements of diocesan epis- copacy would divest him of the apostolical character and office. It would indicate great want of respect for exalted erudition, were I to pass onwards without Stopping to admire the array of an- cient historical references with which your pages are here studded. How it must amaze the ordinary reader, unblessed with a copy of Bingham's ecclesiastical antiquities, and ig- norant of the mysteries of contents and indi- ces, to think where all this learning lias been acquired ! In truth this is the only valuable purpose it can serve. Although I shall have occasion afterwards to prove how little depen- dence is to be placed upon the testimony of antiquity, I cannot pass your references upon this point without some observations. After a good deal of literary affectation, you observe, " The casual and undesigned notices of the earliest authors, all concur in affirming the fact ;" and again, " So copious are the early writers on this point, that you could be over- whelmed by the multitude of passages which can be adduced in substantiation of it."* Now, if" the earliest writers all concur in affirming the fact," if I can be " overwhelmed " by pas- sages from the " early writers," why not pro- duce them ? Where is the testimony of Cle- mens Romanus, of Polycarp, or of Clemens Alexandrinus ? Can your valued friend Igna- tius bring no assistance in your distress? Well, hut you reply, my witnesses " lived in the third and fourth centuries." No, sir, not (hie of them lived in the third eentury, but some in the fourth, and others in the fifth. To make them appear more venerable, you take the liberty of putting them back for a century. But what is a hundred years, one way or another, if pre- lacy can be propped up? I trust we shall hear no more of" the casual and undesigned noti- ces of the curliest writers " being favourable to your scheme. All the authors to whom you refer wrote long after the events of which they speak took place, and their statements are just as worthy of credit as any story you might gather from tradition about the rank and duties of a min- ister, in some cily of Holland, four or five hun- dred years ago. The persons whom you quote, most likely gathered from Eusebius, who him- self gathered from dark and uncertain tradi- tions. Even his opinion cannot bo received as authentic evidence of the exact state of things several hundred years before he lived. It is acknowledged by a Roman Catholic his- loiian,-)- that the books from whence Eusebius borrowed this, are so full of errors, that there is no credit due to them. Much more should a proteStanl be ashamed to stake the preten- sions of his church on the credit of Buch fabu- lous witnesses as these. Had you not brought Eusebius again into tile held, 1 had been saved the trouble of criticising your quotation from him respecting James, which occurs in the * Letters, pp. 00 and 70. + Valcsius. ' Sermons on the Church.'* Eirst, your refe- rence in this place is incorrect. It should bo, not chapter twenty-two, but chapter twenty- three. Second; the passage is not given as it is in the original, though I grant that the cur tailment does not much affect the question at issue. But, third, what is more remarkable, in order to prove that all is right, you quote some words of Latin at the close of the pas- sage, as if the original had been in that lan- guage. A divine whose favourite pastime is to "swim in the depths of scholarship," one so deeply learned in the fathers, ought to know that Eusebius wrote in Greek, and not in Latin. Like the country schoolmaster, who quoted a scrap of Pope's Homer, to prove that the siege of Troy was first written in English, you have pro- bably stumbled upon some Latin translation of Eusebius, and mistaken it for the original. f You remind me that " these authors used the term ' bishop,' not in its primitive signifi- cation, but in the prelatic sense." The primi- tive signification of the term bishop, you have yourself explained. "It was a title which once belonged to ministers generally." " In this passage,* it is given to ordinary pastors."§ " Bishop — a name at first bestowed upon pas- tors of congregations." || Again, when it an- swers your purpose, we must understand by " bishop," a regular diocesan. Whenever the term is used at the present day, people imme- diately think of an exalted dignitary, appoin- ted by government, and possessed of extensive powers both civil and ecclesiastical. Taking advantage of the popular but unscriplural way in which the term is now employed, you would have us to suppose, that wherever a minister was called a bishop by any of the ancient writers, your view is established, and that he was just such a person as a rjrelate of the Church of England. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The early historians, as you have yourself acknowledged, employed it, as it is used in the Scriptures, to signify the pas- tor of a congregation. Officers like prelates were then unknown. It is true that, after tbe church became corrupt, later writers have " used the term ' bishop,' not in its primitive signification, but in the prelatic sense." And what is more natural than that they should speak of the apostolic ago according to the common language of the times in which they lived ? James appears to have resided more at Jerusalem than any of the other apostles, and on that account they called him bishop of that city. The unfairness of playing upon the » I'age 189. + This is by no means improbable, as eimilBT Man- illas are to be nut with, both in the ' Sermons on the Church,' and ' Letters on !• pisenpaey.' At |iace 190 of the former, " Eutebiua is again represented as a l.alin father." It is said," Eusebius writes Sed ad I.uras, &n." And at pace 131 o( the latter, after some llnnr- iahing about " srcnuil-haiiH" extracts, reference is made to •' Biuii Concilia" for the urmiwil of the Suiodical epistle of the council of Nice. The letter of the Nicene council, as giren in P.iniiis, is In t.utin. whereas the original, as in Tbeodoret, is In Greek- Such are speci- mens of Mr. Boyd's (>iiu;i\ii.s : : t Aets xx, 2S. t Sermons on the Church, p. 180. H Letters, page 91. N 98 ALLEGED PRELACY OF JAMES DISPROVED. word, and. inferring that James, because called a bishop, was like a modern prelate in his dio- cese — ruling, ordaining, and consecrating alone— is pointed out by several candid and j udicious writers. Burton " will not affirm that the title of bishop was that given at first to James, or that the office which he bore was analogous to that of bishop in latter times."* Mosheim observes, " I rather suspect that these ancient writers might incautiously be led to form their judgment of the state of things in the first century, from the maxims and prac- tice of their own times, and finding that after the departure of the other apostles on their re- spective missions, the chief regulation and su- perintendence of the church at Jerusalem res- ted with James, they without farther reason concluded, that he must have been appointed bishop of that church. . . The function of an apostle differed widely from that of a bishop, and I therefore do not think that James, who was an apostle, was ever appointed or discharged the episcopal office at Jerusalem. The government of the church in that city, it rather appears to me, was placed in the hands of its presbyters." f You have the mis- fortune to differ also from bishop Stillingfleet, who cannot discover the prelacy of James, where you profess to see it clearly. " His power," he remarks, "it is plain, was of the same nature with that of the apostles them- selves ; and who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the office of or- dinary bishops? James, in all probability, did exercise his apostlcship the most at Jeru- salem, where, by the Scriptures, we find him resident, and from hence the church afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad, as the other apostles did, according to the language of their own times, they fixed the title of bishop upon him. "| Rome was the place at which many of the early writers supposed Peter to have resided, and therefore they call him bi- shop of Rome. If you accept their testimony in the one case, you cannot fairly reject it in the other. < It is a very just observation of the learned Dr. Wliittaker, regius professor of divinity, " When the fathers call James or Peter bishops, they take not the name of bi- shop properly, but they called them bishops of those churches where they staid for a time." And he adds, " It is absurd to say that the apostles were bishops, since he that is properly a bishop cannot be an apostle, the bishops being set over one church, and the apostles founders and overseers of many churches. And that it differs very little from madness to say thatPeter or any other apostles were bishops."§ So much from an episcopal brother. That a person seriously using this argumenthas there- by entitled himself to be received into a luna- tic asylum, is what I would not assert. But in a case of theological de lunatico inqnirendo, I am bound to submit to the superior discri- mination of a Church of England professor of divinity. * Lecture iv, p. 102. + Mosbeim's Commentaries, vol. i, page 230, 231. t Iren. 356. i De Poatif. 1. 2, c. 15. Seeing then that what is dignified with the name of Scripture evidence for the prelacy of James is trilling and absurd — that not one instance of his having acted in the capacity of a diocesan bishop can be pointed out — that, on the contrary, others governed the church along with him, and that no dependence can be placed on the human testimonies you have adduced ; how is it that you have the " high presumption " to emblazon it in Italics, as if you had demonstrated one of Euclid's propo- sitions,that <, DiocesanEpiscopacy existed in ap- ostolic times, and under apostolic arrangement"? " Surely, Rev. sir, you cannot expect that a rash assertion such as this will pass current with any but those stupified with prejudice, for legitimate and logical argument." Had you been contented with evidence from the Scriptures, and looked at the church of Jerusalem with a less jaundiced eye, you would have found in it an example of that parity you so much malign. For a length of time the twelve apostles resided at Jerusalem. Acting in the capacity of presbyter? or elders, as they call themselves, they managed the affairs of that church in common, both as to ordination and government. Keep in view the fact that, according to the system of diocesan episcopacy, there cannot be more than one bishop in one city. Yet here we have, in this single church, moro bishops' than one at the same time pos- sessing equal power and authority. Again, they acted as equals at the election of Matthias when Peter addressed them.* They acted as a presbytery at the ordination of the seven deacons, f They appeared in the same ca- pacity when Paul was admitted into their com- pany and fellowship. | And before they finally departed from Jerusalem, they met together with the elders of the church and commission- ers from Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and pro- •bably from the churches of Asia ; they formed one assembly to decide all matters in dispute, and to take measures for preserving the purity of the faith, and promoting the extension of the gospel. In Jerusalem, as well as hi other constituted churches, the apostles acted the part of presbyters, and engaged in the ordinary management of affairs with those whom they had ordained to the sacred office. May I venture from what has been said to draw two inferences. First, that the advocates of diocesan episcopacy are hardly pressed when they have recourse to such a frivolous argu- ment as this. Second, that prelacy was un- known in the Primitive church of Jerusalem. Presuming that you had settled prelacy at Jerusalem, you proceed to say, " I might ap- ply the same line of proof (proof!) to many other churches of apostolic times." § You profess here to base your arguments on Scrip- ture, and j r et you expect me to take this asser- tion for granted without the production of a single text. Not one passing expression, not an incident in a narrative, not even a single preposition in the New Testament canbepres- * Actsi, 15. + Acts vi. i Letters, p. 71. % Acts ix, 26-28. TIMOTHY AND TITUS NOT PRELATES, BUT EVANGELISTS. yy soil into your service. Scripture being totally at variance with your theory, you attempt to cnvrr the deficiency by reference to history; and by giving one of those literary flourishes that you are accustomed to make for the enter tainment of your friends. My observations respecting the degree of credit due to the fathers I reserve to the consideration of the argument from antiquity. At present, however, I may notice that Eusebiua, your leading authority in this place, contradicts himself respecting Euodias, for he state- in one place that he was the second, and in another that he was thcjirsl bishop of Antioch. Something is wrong in a link of the succession here, but no matter. Even supposing that your references to E use- bins, Socrates, and Epiphanius, could be es- tablished, supposing you could reckon with certainty, which assuredly you cannot, forty bishops at Jerusalem and twenty-seven at An- tioch, you have not proved that they were diocesan bishops, or that they possessed and exercised the same authority and exclusive privileges enjoyed by prelates in modern times. Evidence of this is absolutely necessary to support your position. Without such proof it is a baseless fabric. With as much propriety you might attempt to show that the congrega- tion of which I am a minister have acknow- ledged prelacy, and located diocesan episco- pacy from its very establishment, because you could extract from the Ordnance Survey the succession of its bishops from a very early period to the present time. Your next" position is couched in language so very inaccurate, that it is difficult to un- derstand your meaning. Accustomed, as you are, to soar in the lofty regions of scholarship, it would be an act of gracious condescension to frame your language in 6ueh a way, that less aspiring minds might bo able to find out Something of its meaning, and reap some ad- vantage from the perusal of your works. Per- mit me to ([note your proclamation previous to the announcement of the honours said to have been conferred on Timothy and Titus. " The men whom / have represented as bi- shops of the apostolic churches have been either apostles themselves, (remember what Dr. Whittaker has sail about degrading the aposth-, into located diocesans), or of the same standing as the apostles (strange and incohe- rent language.) I shall now advance a step in the argument, and show that the same in- stitution, that of episcopacy, (I presume you mean Church of England and not Scripture episcopacy: prelacy should have been your word,) which the apostles established in their own persons in the churches, they farther established by the appointment of others init."* Wli.it does " it" mean ? And then you pro- pose to show that the apostles were succeeded by individuals. Pray what do you intend by "churches?" [f you mean congregational Churches, and intend to say thai each congre- gation had its bishop, we are quite agreed. Bui then you destroy diocesan episcopacy, and * Letters, p. 7i. you give too high an authority to such con- gregational bishops when you insist that they are "of the same standing as the apostles." Indued, as they were, with such great and su- pernatural powers, a congregational bishop is not to be elevated to their rank and stand- ing. But if you mean diocesan churches, you ought first to have proved that such churches were instituted by the apostles, before you can suppose that they appointed any person to govern them. The formation of a diocese is, I should think, a very necessary preliminary to the location of a prelate. And this leads me to the consideration of the statements that you have advanced upon this point. Ephesus is the church to be prelatised, and Timothy the person to be enthroned in the vacant dio- cese. SECT. IX. — TIMOTHY AND TITUS NOT PRELATES BUT EVANGELISTS. Upon this point there is a civil war raging in your own camp. The supporters of prelacy- are not agreed among themselves as to the rank to which Timothy should be elevated. Some say that he was bishop of Ephesus, with jurisdiction over his presbyters, while others declare that he was an archbishop, and lord primate of all Asia, having a number of suf- fragan bishops under his control. This ques- tion should be settled among yourselves, be- fore you can expect to convince presbyterians. But, as I think there is at present no autho- rity in the church capable of meeting the dif- ficulty, might I suggest the advantage of get- ting a rider upon some act of parliament that would authoritatively settle the question ? This would prevent the unseemly confusion that prevails among yourselves, and it would bo a comfort for an opponent to have some- thing tangible with which to grapple. I quote a few remarks on this point from Daille, whom I perceive you have strangely introduced as friendly to prelacy : " Here the hierarchs, having their imagination full of their grand prelatures, of their bishoprics, their arch- bishoprics, and their primacies, d<> not fail to dream of one in these words of the apostle : that ' he besought Timothy tu abide still at Ephesus ,•' and not only that, but even me- tropolitan, or archbishop of tho province, and even primate of all Asia. You see how ingenious is the passion for the crozier and the mitre, being able in so few and simple words to detect such great mysteries? For where is the man who, in the use of his natu- ral understanding, without being heated by a previous attachment, could ever have found so many mi/res — thai of a bishop, that of an archbishop, and that of a primate, in those two words, Paul besought Timothy to abide still at Ephesus f Who, without the help of some ex traordinary passion, could ever have made o charming and BO rale a discover] '* and imagine, that to beseech a man to stay in a city, means to establish him bishop of that city, archbishop of the province, and primate Deviner line chose si belle et si rare ? _J 100 TIMOTHY AND TITUS of all tho country ? In very deed, the cause of these gentlemen of the hierarchy must be reduced to an evil plight,*.since they are con- strained to resort to such pitiful proofs."f I think you must have been conscious of deal- ing unfairly with tho Frenchman, when you brought him as a witness in your favour. The mere fact of the variance among prelatists to which he refers, is a strong presumption against this argument. Leaving out of view the theories of your friends, who make Timothy act in a more ex- alted sphere,I will pursue the course of yourlu- cubrations,and consider with what proprietyyou have consecrated him lord bishop of Ephesus. Your position is, that the epistles to Timothy " were written in the years 65 and 66 ; " J and that he was then diocesan bishop of Ephesus, because the apostle Paul addressed him in that capacity. Truly, sir, you calculate largely on the gullibility of the public, when you thus pass an authoritative sentence on the precise date of these epistles, without assigning a single reason. Your ipse dixit is quite suffi- cient, in your own mind, to establish the point, and to sweep away every difficulty. Newton was accustomed to speak with diffidence of the conclusions to which ho had arrived, and, in questionable matters, to put them, not in the shape of dogmas which no one was to doubt, but in the form of questions to be submitted to the consideration of after times. Your towering genius scorns to acknowledge the pos- sibility of error ; and though you stand in op- position to multitudes of biblical critics, your decision is intended to be final. Here let me observe, that the cause for which I contend is in no way affected by this reference to chronology, nor will it suffer any injury, let it be determined as it may. But if your chronological hypothesis fail, your cause is irretrievably lost. For after the time this epistle was written, which is supposed to con- tain evidence that Timothy was prelate of Ephesus, Paul bade farewell to the elders of that city, solemnly committed to them the go- vernment of the church, and reminded them that the Holy Ghost had made them its bi- shops or overseers. Had Timothy been then their diocesan, the terms of the apostle's ad- dress would have been far different. That tho first epistle was written before Paul's interview with the elders of Ephesus, will appear from two or three considerations. It was written when Timothy was a young man, " Let no man despise thy youth." § For the same reason, Paul calls him his son.|| Benson and Michaelis observe that, if we sup- pose Timothy to have been twenty when Paul first took him with him, he would be about twenty-seven now. But if the epistle was written after Paul's imprisonment at Rome, * A de mauvais termes. + Daille Eposition de la premier epitre de V Apotre Saint Paul a Timothee ; tn 48 sermons prononces a charenton. Sermon i, pp. 22,23; a Geneve, 1661, 1 2 mo. t Letters, p. 73. ? 1 Tim. iv, 12. II 1 Timolhy, i, 2, 18; 2 Timothy, ii, 1. Timothy was thirty-four or thirty-five, and Paul would not have been likely to anticipate objections to him on account of his youth. " According to my chronology," says Burton, "he would be about twenty-six at the present time, and thirty three at the period of St. Paul's release ; and though the difference in age does not appear to me so striking, it is certainly more probable that St. Paul should allude to his youth when he was twenty-six than when he was thirty-three. And if we recollect that in 1 Cor. xvi. 11, which we suppose to have been written not long before, St. Paul says of Timothy, " Let no man despise liim ;" the coincidence between the two passages may afford another ground for believing that I have assigned a right date to the epistle of Timothy, namely, that it was written in a.d. 52." * Baronius,Lightfoot, Hammond, Cave, Lard- ner, Hug, and others, maintain that the second epistle to Timothy was written during Paul's first imprisonment at Rome. If they be'eorrect in their views, the first epistle must have been written before that time. Timothy could not have been bishop of Ephesus when Paul wrote his first epistle to him, for he would not him- self have excommunicated Hymenajus and Alexander,f but would have committed this duty to the bishop of the diocese. And far- ther, directions are given in the epistle about the mode of setting apart ministers to the sa- cred office, from which it will appear that the number of elders in Ephesus and the neigh- bouring churches was at that time very small. But this does not appear to hare been the case when Paul addressed them, and it is therefore probable that this address was sub- sequent to his writing the epistle. But that which renders it conclusive that the epistle was written at the early date, and that you are entirely mistaken on the subject, is the solemn farewell that Paul addressed to the elders of Ephesus, at Miletus, and the de- claration which he made on that occasion, " Behold, I know that ye all among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God shall see my face no more."| But, according to your view, they actually did see lnm once or twice after this period, and thus you make his prediction utterly to fail. Nay, in his first epistle, if it was directed to Timothy at Ephe- sus (which the learned Dr. Whitby doubts,) he expressly mentions his intention of his " com- ing to him shortly" there. § Now, though the apostles might fail in doing many tlungs that they intended, yet I should think it dangerous, for the purpose of supporting your theory, to assert that the apostle was mistaken in a pre- diction so solemnly delivered — a prediction which they to whom it was addressed looked upon as certain of fulfilment, for the evange- list Luke adds, " sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more."|| Let it be remembered, * Attempt to ascertain the Chronology of the Acts of the Apostles, &c. By Or. Burton, Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, p. 80. + 1 Timothy, i, 20. t Acts xx, 25. i ITim.iii, 14. II Acts xx, 38. NOT PRELATES, BUT EVANGELISTS. 101 too, that this was written several years after the transactions took place, and that Lake was guided by the Spirit of God when be recorded it twice in the Acts of the Apostles. Add to this, that history never mentions any subse- quent visit that Paul made to Ephesus. And to sny that he returned again; is to setup a conjecture of your own in opposition to the solemn prophecy which be delivered.* The foundation of your argument being tints utterly destroyed] the superstructure you have raised upon it tumbles to the ground! and Timothy's title to the episcopal throne of Ephesus is null and void. For it is alter his pretended advancement, the apostle takes his leave of the elders of that church, and commits it to their care, without the slightest reference to their diocesan. Is it not most unaccount- able, on your theory, that Paul makes no refer- ence to this supposed appointment in his ad- dress? It was the last time he was to visit them. They were to see his face no more. Timothy was present, or at no great distance ;f and yet he never makes the slightest reference to his authority, hut tells them, before the face of their supposed prelate, that they themselves were bishops, and that the Holy Ghost had committed to them the government of the church. The conduct of the apostle is totally irreconcilable with the hypothesis, that prelacy was then established in the church of Ephesus. Again, let me call your attention to another part of the New Testament — the epistle to the Ephcsians. Prom passages that occur in the body of this document, we learn that it was written when Paul was a prisoner,! that is, after the time when the first epistle to Timo- thy had been written. And yet, strange to say, there is nothing in the epistle to the Bphesians recognizing the prelacy of Timothy or of any other person. Had he been indeed the bishop of the diocese, we cannot think he would have been forgotten. It were an insult to his authority to have passed him by unnoti- ced. The sending of such a letter to the clergy and laity of his diocese, to use your own for- cible language, was " an unwarrantable and intrusive interference — a meddling with the ministerial charge of another, in a manner Which neither propriety nor order would sanc- tion." But the apostle goes even farther than this; he not only fails to recognize the autho- rity of Timothy at Ephesus, but, having des- patched him to PhUippi, Troas, and other churches, he actually writes to Die supposed • Baroniii.s, Grotius. Salmasius.Lightfbot, Hammond, Benson, l.ardner, Mlchaclis, Bertboldt,Hug, Cappellus, Cary, Hall, Doddridge, and mauy others, maintain the early date of the first epistle to Timothy. Athanasiua is also quoted l>y Gothofredua as holding the same opi. oion, Reference lias already been made to Dr. Burton, oneol the ftrst authorities, who, in his Chronology, p 76, "has no hesitation In adopting tin- view that this epistle was written alter he left lipliesns in .02." these are formidable authorities— the most eminent critics of ancient and modern times— nun of various views in the government of the church; Divines of the Church of England, Presbyterians. Independents, and Roman Ca- tuolics.all agree as lo the early date of das epistle, but Mr. Boyd "thinks otherwise." + Acts xx, I. i Chap, iii, 1 ; iv, 1 ; vi, 20. prelate that ho had sent Tychicus to Ephe- sus;* and we learn the purposes for which ho sent him, from Eph. vi, 21, 22, " That ye may also know my affairs, and how I do, Ty- chicus, a beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all things, whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that you might know our af- fairs, and that he might comfort your hearts." According to your theory, this was " an un- warrantable and intrusive interference " to take advantage of the bishop's absence, and Bend a preacher on the "home mission" to the cathedral church of his diocese, without ever consulting him on the subject. If Ephe- sus must be a diocesan see, might I introduce this Tychicus to your notice as a person well fitted to receive the presentation, and for whom a much better case can be made out than for Timothy, whom you patronize ? The assertion on which your reasoning is built having been shown to be false, I might he fully justified in passing, without, farther notice, your remarks upon this point. But, with a courtesy which you hardly merit at my hands, I proceed to prove, that though your wayward system of chronology should he al- lowed, though times and seasons should be altered at your pleasure, yet still your argu- ment is weak, your hypothesis groundless and vain. I shall first hear your ease, and then show that Timothy and Titus were evange- lists, and therefore not diocesan bishops. From the confusion that marks the com- mencement of your observations, I suspect you were conscious of having made a bold and unsupported assertion. Your quotations from the epistles both of Timothy and Titus, are mingled together; and you take it for granted, without any warrant, that all the instructions given to tho one were addressed also to the other. The power of ordination and jurisdiction you infer to belong exclusively to Timothy and Titus, from the exhortations addressed to them, — " Lay hands suddenly on no man." — " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou sliouldest ordain ciders in every city." — "These tilings command and teach. "f It has already been demonstrated upon evidence, that even your erudition will not easily set aside that to presbyters belongs the privilege of ordaining; and it has been shown that they actually exercised Ibis privilege in the case of Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy. It has been proved also, that presbyters enjoyed the power of jurisdiction in conjunction with the apostles, and consequently with their approbation and authority. The texts that you adduce may fairly be brought to show that Timothy and Titus performed the duties of presbyters ; but thej can answer no other purpose. There is not a syllable to intimate that they were tho only persons authorized to perform them. On the contrary, it is expressly taught, that to all ordained to the ministry the power of ordina lion and government belong. To Timothy it * 2 Tim. iv, 12. + Letters, p, 74. 102 TIMOTHY AND TITUS was said, " Lay hands suddenly on no man.'' Some are of opinion, among whom is the fa- mous Hammond, that this text does not refer to ordination at all ; hut supposing that it do, it is no proof that Timothy was a diocesan bi- shop, since apostles, evangelists, and presby- ters, all had the power of ordination. Timo- thy might exercise this power in any or all of these characters. It is quite uncertain whether he ordained alone upon any occasion. Titus undoubtedly had colleagues ; and it is proba- ble Timothy had the same. There is no ne- cessity for supposing, from this expression, that a new office was created, or that Timothy was a diocesan bishop. It is justly said by Willet, a supporter of prelacy, — " Neither can it be granted by the words of the apostle, ' Lay hands suddenly on no man,' &c, that Timothy had this sole power to himself; for, the apostle would not give that to him which he did not take to himself, who associated to him the rest of the presbyters in ordaining Timothy."* The same observations apply to the case of Titus. You suggest, however, what you think a difficulty in the presbyterian view — the circumstance that he was left in Crete to or- dain, or, as it might be translated, " consti- tute " or " establish," when others were com- petent to ordain without him. You assert that he was left alone for this purpose. Where is your proof of this ? It is certain that there were brethren that accompanied him, and who were engaged in the same work. Zenas and Apollos are mentioned as his colleagues ;f the latter of whom was an eloquent preacher of the gospel, and ardent in the discharge of his min- isterial duties. Whether any elders had pre- viously been ordained upon this island is not known. Yet supposing that before this time some had been set apart to the work of the ministry, might it not have occurred to you, that, in the infant state of the church, the choice of pro- per officers was a matter of great importance, that the newly-appointed presbyters had little experience, and that therefore persons of high- er qualifications and superior wisdom were necessary, " to set in order the things that were wanting." The churches were arranged ac- cording to the direction which Titus had re- ceived, and their superintendence committed to the ordinary ministers of the word. Some presbyters might have been ordained, and Titus and his colleagues might have ordained others, and yet he not he bishop or archbishop of Crete. Surely, if his ordaining elders proves him to have been bishop of that island, Paul's ordaining some, must make him also bishop of the same supposed diocese. Timothy being authorised to rebuke and re- ceive an accusation, in your mind constitutes him a prelate. This by no means follows. He might rebuke as an evangelist or as a minister, for to every minister this power is committed.! Though it be granted that this text gives Ti- * Willet, Synops. Papism, t'ontr. 5 Quest. 3. + Tit. iii, 1-2, 13. t 2 Sam.xii, 7— F.zek. ii— Mark vi, 18. mothy the power to receive an accusation against an elder before two or three witnesses, it does not exclude the other elders of Ephe- sus from the exercise of a similar power — it confers not upon him the sole authority of hear- ing, and determining complaints, without the counsel of the elders of the church. On the contrary, they are expressly said to be rulers, and in this very church.* The reasoning would be just as conclusive — that the exhor- tations to preach the word — to be an example unto the believers — to give attendance to read- ing, to exhortation, to doctrine — to meditate upon these things, were intended for Timothy alone, and should never be addressed to any other person. It must follow, by your reason- ing, that other presbyters are not to preach — that they are not bound to be an example to believers — that attention to reading, exhorta- tion, and doctrine, is quite unnecessary for them, and meditation upon divine things abso- lutely forbidden. It often happens, that a communication ap- plies to all persons in the same circumstances as the individual who receives it. When, for instance, one or a number are set apart to the work of the ministry, their duties are usually laid before them and enforced. But who would dream, that others invested with the sacred office have no concern in the exhortations de livered, and that to the newly-ordained minis- ter these duties exclusively belong ? To give a familiar example. Not long since, I re- ceived a letter from a respected minister in Scotland, pointing out a plan for missionary operations in this kingdom, and describing the character and qualifications of those who should be employed in this important work. It might have been addressed with equal pro- priety to any minister of our church. I never dreamt that I was thereby invested with new and exclusive powers. Until this moment I was in ignorance of the dignity intended for me. But your reasoning throws new light on the subject of this letter. It is plain to me now, that my friend is resolved to raise me to the dignity of a prelate, and give me a diocese of no inconsiderable extent and importance. You cannot in fairness reject your own me- thod of reasoning, when applied to other cases. Take the example of what our Lord said to Peter: " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," &c.f Therefore the power of the keys was given only to Peter, and not to the rest of the apos- tles. Thus your argument for prelates is pre- cisely similar to that used for the exclusive au- thority of the Pope. If the one has any weight against the presbyterian system, the other de- molishes the hierarchy of England. Most extraordinary are your statements re- garding the address of the apostle Paul to the eiders of Ephesus. You try to strip these offi- cers of the authority with which they were in- vested, and thus to bend the word of God to * 1 Tim. v, 17— Acts xx,28. + Matt, xvi, 19. NOT PRELATES, BUT EVANGELISTS. 103 the system you are attempting to defend. To quote your own words. "They are addressed us pastors, but not as men baying authority. They are tol>ni. vl, adv. Jud. } Dr. Whithy. Preface to Titus. is also applied to a class of officers who were employed iu establishing and confirming the churches, andfiiiishing'tho work whichthc apos- tles had begun. Such were Phillip, Mark, Silas, Tychicus, Luke, &c. That such extra ordinary officers were at first employed in assist- ing to plant and water the churches, is a fact that cannot be doubted. Sometimes they at- tended the apostles iii their travels from place to place. At other times they were sent where the apostles had not the opportunity of going themselves, and accordingly they received from them instructions about the arrangement and management of the newly constituted churches. Their call to the office seems to have been extra- ordinary from what is said in 1 Tim. i, 18; and the remarkable powers that were given toJPhil- lip, by which he wrought miracles and gave con- vincing proofs of his mission.* Such officers, at the first planting of the gospel, were abso- lutely necessary. The apostles travelled from place to place, and converted many to the know- ledge of the truth. Among the new converts there might not be found at once a sufficient number qualified for the ministerial office. It was therefore necessary that, for a time, they should be trained up in the knowledge of divine things, and more fully instructed in the gospel before the solemn trust was committed to them " to feed the church of God." As the apostles could not be permanently resident in any one place, it was the great duty of evangelists to perfect the arrangements which they had com- menced, and'set in order the things that were wanting. The canon of Scripture, being as yet incomplete, they were enabled, in some degree, to make up for this deficiency, by de- claring authoritatively the mind of the apos- tles. Their office, it is acknowledged by all, was not fixed to any particular settled church. Residence in some one locality is required of every standing and ordinary church officer; but this was not required with regard to them. When they had executed their commission in any particular city or district, they were accus- tomed to pass to other places and churches which required similar regulation. For these purposes, their powers, like those of the apos- tles, were extraordinary. Their office, too, was temporary, and therefore their exercise of authority in the infant churches is no warrant for a race of permanent officers at the present day. Dr. Whitby justly observes on Ephe- sians iv, in reference to evangelists, &c. : " Whence it demonstratively follows, that these gifts ceasing soon after, a succession of such persons was neither promised nor necessary." Evangelists are not only spoken of in the Scriptures, but their duties are described by an authority which you at least cannot refuse to respect. Eusebius tells us that " they built up the churches where foundations had pre- viously been laid in every place by the apos ties. They augmented the means of promul- gating the gospel more and more, and spread the seeds of salvation and of the heavenly * Acts viii, f> — 13. 10(5 TIMOTHY AND TITUS kingdom throughout the world, far and near. Afterwards, leaving their country, these dis- ciples performed the work of evangelists to those who had not heard the faith, whilst with a nohle ambition to proclaim Christ, they also delivered to them the books of the holy gos- pels. After laying the foundation of the faith in foreign parts as the particular object of their mission, and after appointing others as shep- herds of the flock, and committing to these tho care of those that had been recently in- troduced, they went again to other regions and nations with the grace and co-operation of God. The Holy Spirit also wrought many wonders as yet through them, so that as soon as the gospel was heard, men voluntarily, in crowds, and eagerly, embraced the true faith with their whole minds."* You will observe that the historian uses the very same expres- sion that the apostle Paul applied to Timothy — an expression which you have unaccountably thought fit to condemn, namely, " the work of an evangelist." If you will take the troublo of comparing the description given in this extract with the work allotted to Timothy and Titus, in the epistles addressed to them, and with their his- tory and travels recorded in the New Testa- ment, you cannot fail to perceive the most ex- act accordance, and to see that they were con- stantly engaged in the work of evangelists. Let us take the case of Timothy. We find him constantly employed in travelling with Paul as his fellow helper and assistant, or act- ing as his messenger or delegate. Never do we find him permanently resident in any one place. We learn from Acts xvi, 1 — 12, that Timothy first came to Paul when he was at Derbe and Lystra,that they proceeded together through Phyrgia, Galatia, Asia, Mysia, and last of all that ho came to Philippi, where he abode with Paul. He appears afterwards to have been sent from Philippi to Corinth, there to engage in the work of the Lord.f After re- maining there for a time, he repaired again to Paul at Philippi, and there joined him in the second epistle to the Corinthians, written in both their names, 2 Corinthians, i, 1. From the 1 9th verse, it is evident that Timothy, be- fore this second epistle was written, had preach- ed Jesus among the Corinthians, by Paul's appointment. After this, Paul removing from Philippi, Timothy accompanied him to Thes- salonica, and Berea, where he abode till Paul came to Athens : from whence he sent a com- mand to Timothy to Berea, to come to him with all speed to Athens, where he stayed for him.J He joined with Paul in the first and second epistles to the Thessalonians, written from Athens, in both their names. § When Paul remained at Athens, he sent Timothy to the Thessalonians, to establish and comfort them concerning their faith. After continuing there for a short space, he came again to Paul * Eusebius, lib. iii, chap, xxxvii. + ICor. iv, ]7; xvi, 10. t Acts xvii, 13—16. i 1 Thess. i, 1, 2 ; 2 Thess. i, 1. at Athens, bringing him good tidings of their faith and charity.* Then, again, he removed with Paul to Corinth. From this he was sent into Macedonia, and returned again to Paul at Corinth.f The epistle to the Romans was written from this, and the apostle remembers, among others, the salutation of Timothy, his work-fellow, to them. J After this, Paul re- moving to Ephesus, sent Timothy into Mace- donia, — himself Staying in Asia for a season.§ If he had been a diocesan bishop, surely the apostle would not have sent him away from his see, to interfere with the ministerial char- ges of others. Paul afterwards passed into Macedonia and Greece, and then returned into Asia. Timothy and others accompanied him, and, going before, tarried for him at Troas.|| This was after the epistle to Timothy had been written, constituting him, as you suppose, sole bishop of Ephesus. The elders or bishops of that church were afterwards sent for, and charged by the apostle " to take heed to them- selves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost had made them bishops, to feed the church of God which he had purchased, &c."^j" If Timothy had been their diocesan, it would have been much fitter for him to have deli- vered a charge to his own clergy. Of course we might expect, that when Paul dismissed them, and they returned to Ephesus, their diocesan would certainly return along with them, and be doubly anxious to remain at home, and enforce obedience to the duties to which they were so solemnly charged. But no : so far from going to Ephesus, he accom- panied Paul to Jerusalem.** From thence he went to Rome, for the epistle to the Colossi- ans, written from that city, bears both their names.f f He was in the same city when the epistle to the Philippians was written, and from this the apostle intended shortly to send him to Philippi.jJ He appears also to have been in bondage at Rome shortly before the epis- tle to the Hebrews was written, for his libera- tion is mentioned in Hebrews xiii, 23. The epistle to the Hebrews was written from Italy, perhaps from Rome, about the end of Paul's imprisonment in that city.§§ This was many years after the time he was supposed to be a settled diocesan. But, what is his conduct when set at liberty ? Does he immediately hasten to Ephesus, as we might expect, an- xious to resume his charge and comfort the city so long in distress for a bishop? No. Utterly regardless of the affairs of his diocess, he made arrangements to proceed to Jerusalem, or possibly he went to Philippi, whither the apostle had promised to send him. Thus Timothy appeal's to have been always attend- ing the apostle, or travelling by his appoint- * 1 Thess. iii, 1 — 7. + Acts xviii, 5. t Rom- xvi, 21. i Actsxix,22. I! Acts xx, 4,5. 1T Acts xx, 28. ** Acts xxi. 15, 17. ++ Col. i, 1. }} Philippians ii, 10. Home thinks it probable that Paul wrote the epistle to the Philippians at the end of 69, or at the commencement of 63. — Introd. vol. iv, p. 367. 8$ "The greater part of Commentators place it be- tween 61 and 63."— Home, vol. iv, p. 41 1. NOT PRELATES, BUT EVANGELISTS. 107 merit, from one church to another. Ephesus, where you have thought fit to fix him down as a prelate, was a place that appears to have en- gaged very little cf his attention. The same line of proof might be pursued in the case of Titus. The object of his mission to Crete is specified in the first chapter of the epistle addressed to him. It is shown to bo temporary in the last chapter, for Paul men- tions his intention of sending another to take his place, and desires him to come without de- lay to Nicopolis. His travels, too, might bo "traced through various countries and cities, but I feel it to be unnecessary. Now, I ask, can any sensible man, not un- der the inlluenco of inveterate prejudice, look at the itinerant lives of Timothy and Titus, and considering how many of their travels may not have been recorded in Scripture, conclude that they were settled diocesan bi- shops ? Where is the shadow of a reason for supposing that they had fixed charges ? Is there not evidence fully as satisfactory that Timothy was prelate of Berea, Philippi, or Thessalonica, as of Ephesus ? Or, that Titus was bishop of Corinth, or metropolitan of Ga- latia, as that ho was bishop or archbishop of Crete ? On the contrary, can any one look at the duties of evangelists in the primitive ohurches, and compare them with the abun- dant labours of Timothy and Titus, these do- voted servants of God, and not bo convinced that this was the character and the oftico which they bore ? — Their commission, their duties, their conduct, all aro opposed to the idea that they were settled diocesan bishops. For, as Dr. Barrow observes, " Episcopacy is an or- dinary standing charge, affixed to one stand- ing place, and requiring a special attendance there." * Farther, the language of Scripture exactly accords with the view that they wero evange- lists. Paul's manner of addressing Timothy implies that Ephesus was not to be his special charge or permanent abode, " I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus."f This text, I am aware, has been adduced as tlie warrant of Timothy's appointment to tho supposed see. In my mind, it proves the very contrary. The entreaty to abido still at Ephesus shows that tliis was not his residence, but that lie was there only for a special purposo. Had Paul made the opposite request, and desired him to depart from Ephesus for a time, there would have been better reason for supposing that it was his settled residence. Here I will treat you to another quotation from Daille, whom with strange infatuation you have represented as favourable to prelacy : " P'or why," says he, " beseech a bishop to remain in his diocese ? Is it not to beseech a man to stay in a place to which he is bound ? I should not think it strange to beseech him to leave it, if his ser- vices were needed elsewhere. But to beseeeli him to abide in a place where his charge obliges him to be, and which he cannot for- » Barrow on the Pope'* Supremacy, p. 82. + 1 Tim. i, 3. sake without offending God and neglecting his duty, is, to say the truth, not a very civil en- treaty ; as it plainly pro-supposes that ho has not his duty much at heart, seeing one is un- der tho necessity of beseeching him to do it."* No where does Scripturo givo any sanc- tion to the idea that Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops. What does Paul say con- cerning them . That he had made them pre- lates ? That he had given Ephesus to Timothy and Crete to Titus f That these were to be their special and permanent charges ? No ; far from it. Tho former remained for a short time, at tho desire of the apostle, to resist the encroachments of false doctrine. The latter, to arrange tho affairs of the infant churches that had been established by tho apostle him- self. Special duties were appointed to each with regard to the churches not already nettled, but in a preparatory state. The charge was temporary in both cases. Paul took the op- portunity of furnishing those whom he had sent in his name with written directions for their conduct, and these have been recorded in the volume of inspired truth for the guid- ance of ministers in all succeeding ages. I grant that, as extraordinary officers, they had extraordinary powers ; but I utterly deny the inferences you draw, that they were pre- lates, and that diocesan episcopacy is an apo- stolic institution. Your conclusions are to- tally erroneous. Their ministry, which was temporary, cannot be a rulo for a ministry which is to bo permanent. The duties to which apostles and evangelists were called, did not allow them to be fixed in any place, and they cannot, therefore, bo pleaded as affording a. warrant for settled diocesan episcopacy. The course adopted in tho original formation of churches is no precedent for the system of their permanent government. To take ex- amples from temporal things : — It is one thing to conquer a kingdom and become master of it, and another thing to govern it when con- quered, so as to retain the possession that has been acquired. Or when a civil constitution is about to bo established, the founders of it are necessarily vested with peculiar powers ; but is it fair to deduce from these, the man- ner in which it is afterwards to be managed ? It is plain that this would be most fallacious reasoning. All must agreo to condemn it as not only false but dangerous. Yet tliis is just tho fallacy that runs through your reasoning, and that of episcopal writers in general. You forget the special and extraordinary powers of apostles and evangelists, and speak as if they were to bo for ever continued in the church. When wc wish to ascertain who are the fixed officers, and what was intended to be tho permanent order of the church, we must enquire, not what the apostles and evangelists did, in the discharge of their peculiar duties, but what offices and orders they settled in Un- churches planted by them. This, and this alone, is the example we are to follow. Wc have the clearest evidence that they ordained » Daille Ci-dessus, p. 23. 108 TIMOTHY AND TITUS NOT PRELATES, BUT EVANGELISTS. presbyters in every church, and committed to them the right of government and ordination. And neither you, nor all the advocates of pre- lacy put together, have been able to produce a single instance of their assigning a fixed charge to any officer above a presbyter. I observe that you dilate at some length on this argument which I formerly employed. It was quite fair to do so, but you should, at the same time, have done me justice in the state- ment of my position, and not weakened my argument by placing within inverted commas a passage purporting to be mine, but which is really your- own. You reply, " It follows not that because a pastor of a congregation in this country is found at one time at the synod in Belfast, at another time on professional busi- ness in Dublin, that therefore he is not the pastor of his congregation. " * In this you are perfectly correct. A minister of our body, being a scriptural bishop, and consequently a ruler in the church, is required from time to time to attend upon its judicatories. And, in taking part in the deliberations of his presby- tery or synod, wherever they may be, he is as much in the discharge of duty as when he oc- cupies his pulpit. But continued non-residence unfits a minister for the proper discharge of ministerial duty. Your views and mine upon this point may be very different I know there are many cases in your church where the minister is never 6een or heard of in his parish for years together. Dignitaries will spend the greater part of their time upon the continent to elude the grasp of the functionaries of the law, yet their pastoral relation to their people is not thereby dissolved. Their spiritual dig- nities are not affected by their absence ; the church maintains their connexion with their ministerial charges, and secures the transmis- sion of their temporalities to foreign lands. Even curates can spend whole summers from their charges, and talk of having been all tho time " in the midst of the engagements of pa- rochial duty." Though such neglect may bo tolerated in your church, and though no doubt you are ready to defend it, with every other abuse, it will be hard to show that it was ap- proved of by the apostles, or sanctioned even by Ignatius himself; and yet if Timothy and Titus were diocesan bishops, it is only upon this supposition that their pastoral relation can be maintained. Your attempt to set aside my argument by reference to chronology is utterly vain. True indeed, " a man might be in a particular station at one period of his life, and not in it in an- other, " and if you be allowed to settle these periods at your pleasure, all will go on smoothly. The inspired author of the Acts of the Apostles has not affixed a date to any one of the facts recorded by him,f and yet you lay down au- thoritatively the dates of important matters recorded there, without giving a single reason other than your own will and pleasure. Valeat * Letters, p. 81. + Home's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, vol. iv, p. 307. quantum valere potest. You assert that the epistles to each were written in the year 65. If you include in this observation the second epistle to Timothy, you contradict your own statement in page 73, for there you declared that it was written in the year 66. Your ar- bitrary system of chronology has already been proved to be erroneous, and therefore no argu- ment, based upon it, can be firm. The true state of the case is this. Long after the first epistle to Timothy was written, which, accord- ing to your supposition, invests him with pre- latical dignity, he is found away from his post, and acting in a manner quite inconsistent with a permanent charge. In truth he is hardly ever heard of at Ephesus, which you have supposed to be the seat of. his episcopal see. I am obliged, Rev. sir, to reiterate the charge, and declare that your representation of his character and duties would convict him of " a shameful neglect of duty, " a neglect of which there is no parallel but in the annals of the Church of England. I cannot pass without observation your pert remark, " It is easy to fasten upon men what titles fancy may suggest. " * I assure you, sir, most persons will think that fancy has more to do in placing Timothy and Titus upon thrones, and arraying them in all the para- phernalia of episcopal pomp, than in calling them evangelists. You should learn, sir, to treat the Scriptures with more respect, and remember that it was not "fancy " that fas- tened upon Timothy the title when Paul ad- dressed him, "Do the work of an evangelist."f All this is to be met by the assertion — " He was a prelate in the church, a bishop in his diocese. "% You ask me, " What is the chaff to the wheat ! " I answer, " What is a curate to an apostle ? " I cannot forbear confirming my view on this point by reference to some eminent writers of the Church of England. The first I shall bring forward is the famous Willet. He re- marks, " It is most like, Timothy had the place and calling of an evangelist ; and the calling of evangelists and bishops, which were pastors, was divers." § Bishop Stillingfleet, whom you have ranked among men distinguished, as you say, for " marvellous industry, wide acquaint- ance with antiquity, and metaphysical &cute- ness, " |j thus speaJcs upon the point: " Such were the evangelists, who were sent sometimes into this country to put the churches in order there, sometimes into another; but wherever they were, they acted as evangelists and not as fixed officers. And such were Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the opposition made against it, as will appear to any who will take an impartial survey of the arguments on both sides.^f ' Nay, the Jesuit Salmeronis ashamed of this argument,for he says,** it is doubtful if Timothy was bishop of Ephesus ; for though * Letters, p. 80. + 2 Timothy, iv, 5. X Boyd's Letters, page 83. " § Synops- Papism, p. 236. II Letters, p. 109. % Iren. p. 368. ** Disput. 1 on Tim. THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES NOT PRELATES. 105) he preached and ordained some to the minis- try there, it follows not that he was the bishop of that place ; for Paul preached also there above two years, and absolved the penitents, and yet he was not bishop. Add, that now ami then the apostle called him away unto himself, and sent him from Rome to the Hebrews with his epistle, and in the second epistle he com- mands him to come to him shortly. Timothy was also an evangelist of that order. "* " So that Dorotheas says in his synopsis, that Timo- thy preached through all (ireece; but he stayed at Ephesus, not to be bishop, but that in the constitute church of Ephesus he might oppose the false apostles." — "Hence it is some call him bishop in Ephesus. "f So bishop Stil- lingtleet pronounces, " Timoth y and Titus were evangelists, notwithstanding all the opposition made against it. " We have thus seen that the duties of Timo- thy and Titus give no countenance to diocesan episcopacy. The chronological hypothesis on which your argument is based has been shown to be totally erroneous, and the texts of Scrip- ture which you have adduced give no sanction to your cause. We have found, on tho con- trary, that theso servants of God were distin- guished by the commission which they held, by the powers which they possessed, and by the abundant labours to which they were de- voted. We bavo seen that they were not stationed in any particular locality, but were engaged in travelling from place to place, in- structing the new converts, and arranging the affairs of infant churches. We have heard tho language of Scripture, tho voice of antiquity, and tho writings of the most learned divines even of the Church of England, pronouncing that Timothy and Titus were not prelates but evangelists. SECT. X. THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES NOT PRELATES. At this stago of your letter, I expected you to bring forward a statement, usually made by people of your school, that Epaphroditus was bishop of I'hilippi. I cannot well account for your omission of his name, his title being as good as any you have advanced. He had "letters dimissory " from the apostle Paul, and was actually sent to I'hilippi, and yet you have had the cruelty to pass him by without promotion. Holding, as you appear to do, the right of presentation to many bishoprics, a multitude of dioceses being undoubtedly vacant, and Epaphroditus having such respectable claims upon your notice, he has received most unhandsome treatment at your hands in being left without a mitre 1 acknowledge that I was prepared to strip him of his episcopal robes, and bring liini down from the throne, on which I thought you would have placed him; but you hare saved ni«' that trouble, and 1 leave youto account to your own adherents for leaving I'hilippi without a prelate, and Epaph- roditus without a see. • Eph. iv. + | rcu . Having thrown this worthy man overboard, (" a course more wise than generous,") you come to the last and only remaining text that the ingenuity of man has attempted to torture into a witness for prelacy. And here it is with you, as generally with the advocates of a hopeless cause, deficiency of argument is made up by confidence of language. As your cause weakens, your boldness increases. I quote your words : " I think I have substantiated all my proofs hitherto, (what a melancholy delu- sion!) and I greatly mistake my case if I do not substantiate this. My original argument was this, that these churches had each several ministers, that the epistle for each church was addressed to a single minister, and that there- fore he must have had pre-eminence among his brethren to distinguish him. To this you are pleased to reply, ' that this is an assertion without one particle of proof.' Why, sir, what would you have ? The proof lies just before your eyes. I have just repeated it. I did not expand it into a detailed argument, because I wished to condense my matter; but the fact was stated, the inference was drawn." * Sure enough, what you call a fact was stated, and the inference was drawn, that the churches of Asia were regular dioceses, and their clergy superintended by prelates. But it turns out to be no fact at all, and your inference is as j wide from your premises as the east is from the west. Such logic may pass current in Oxford or Dublin, but in Belfast or Aberdeen it would be treated with ridicule and contempt. Some Romanists have undertaken to prove that there should be cardinals in the church, from 1 Samuel, ii. 6 : " The pillars of the earth are the Lord's." f Your argument for bishops is precisely similar, and equally con- clusive, that is, they are both frivolous and vain. Who would have thought that after using such language as the following, you would bo found building an argument upon the word, ' angel : ' " The question cannot be one of words. That sort of unsubstantial, shadowy argument may do for your side of the controversy, but it will not do for mine. I rest upon the thing, not the name — upon the reality, not the expression — upon the sub- stance, not the lieeting image.". ." I mean to appeal to facts and not to names — to ascertain rather what duties were performed, what pe- culiar privileges they possessed, than what ap- pellations they bore. This is the way to ar- rive at the truth ; to argue from words is to dial in sophistries." J I quite understand you. To argue from words, in favour of presbytery, is to deal in sophistries, but the same Bpecies of reasoning, provided it be in favour of prelacy, is fair and conclusive. four argument resting upon the word, " angel" is of no weight, from two considera- tions; first, you have failed to prove that by this term a single individual is intended, and * Letters, p. 83 + Domini euim sunt airlines terra. Vulgate. t Letters, pp. 43, -44. ^ 110 THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES NOT PRELATES. second, there is not the shadow of evidence that a diocesan bishop was meant. But, taking it for granted that you are cor- rect in asserting the angel to have been a single individual, I demand, what right have you to assume that he was a diocesan bishop ? It is just as competent for me to assert, that he was the minister of a single congregation, or the Moderator or Clerk of the presbytery. To them official communications are usually directed. They are frequently addressed as individuals, on matters connected with the government and discipline of the church, but they are not upon that account raised to an eminence above their brethren. No exclusive privileges belong to them. Many have main- tained, with a high degree of probability, that in each of the cities mentioned in the second and third chapters of the Revelation, there was only one congregation. Your friend Ig- natius expressly asserts, that all the christians in Ephesus, Philadelphia and Smyrna met to- gether in one place. If he be correct, by the angel we are, of course, to understand the pa- rish minister. We have reason to believe that at this time the disciples of Christ formed a very small minority of the population ; and, if they had been all collected together in each of the cities in question, it is not likely that they would have formed a very numerous flock. We have the best historical evidence to prove that the parishes of these primitive bishops extended a very short way beyond the suburbs of their respective cities. Let us take, as an instance, the case of Laodicea. It appears from Bingham,* that this was formerly a me- tropolitan city. According to the same autho- rity, Hierapolis, mentioned in Col. iv. 13, was also a metropolitan city. We learn, however, fromFerrariusjf that these two citieswere distant only six English miles. As being metropolitans, their bishops must each have presided over a number of suffragans. One of these, of course, was the bishop ofColosse, for that place is also acknowledged by Bingham to have been a bishop's see. This city lay about half-way between Laodicea and Hierapolis, being dis- tant about three English miles from each. "It would be rather difficult at the present day to determine to which metropolitan the bishop of Colosse owed canonical obedience, though Bingham asserts, that it was to his grace of Laodicea. However that may be, we have here, within the space of about five Irish miles, three bishops, two of whom at least were me- tropolitans. But, taking another view, which is also adopted by many, that there were several con- gregations and ministers in each of these cities, the word on which you rest your argument will afford no sanction to diocesan episcopacy. Are you prepared to prove that the word, angel is not used here metaphorically ? Every * Rook ix, chap. 3. + Ferra. Lexic. voce Colossae. The statement of Ferrarius that Laodicea and Hierapolis were distant only six miles, is confirmed by Antonine's. Itinerary, page 337. Edit. Amstelaedum. 1735. reader of the Bible must know that it is very common in the sacred writings to put the singular number for the plural, and to intend a multitude when one only is expressed. For instance, the Jewish mothers are described as a body by a word in the singular number — " Rachel weeping for her children." * By the name "angel" is frequently described not particular men, but ecclesiastical bodies. The use of the term in this way is not uncommon in Scripture. In Malachi, ii, 7, we read, " The priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth, for he is the messenger (or angel) of the Lord of Hosts." And in verses 4, 5, and 6 of the same chapter, the whole tribe of Levi, or the sincere part of it, are spoken of as if they had been a single individual. The term " angel " is employed in this very book collectively, and not personally as in Re- velations, xiv, 6 : Is " the angel that has the everlasting gospel to preach nnto them that dwell on the earth, to every nation and kindred and tongue and people," a single individual ? No, it is evident that by " angel " is intended the whole company of faithful ministers who are to proclaim the tidings of the gospel. This was the plain and natural view adopted by the translators of our Bible ; —swayed by kingly influence they were exceedingly favourable to the cause you advocate, and yet they did not interpret the angels to mean the prelates of the churches. On the contrary, their language, in giving the contents of the second chapter of Revelation, is " the angels — that is the minis- ters of the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna," &c. You think it clear that the angels were single individuals from the passage — "The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches." This does not necessarily follow. As the one candlestick represents the collective body of the church, so the star or angel may represent the pastorate of each church. Yoti grant that " these church- es had each several ministers " besides their res- pective rjrelates. Now, pray, inform me whether these ministers be comprehended under the candlestick or under the star. They must be comprehended under the star, and at the same time under the term angel. Upon your inter- pretation the angels were the diocesan bishops; the bishops were the stars, and therefore the bishops were the only sources of light and knowledge. As the candlesticks are the em- blems of the churches, and as, according to your interpretation, there was but one star to each candlestick, there was but one minister to each church. You thus overthrow your own argument, for without subordinates there can be no superiors. You surely will not insist that the bishop did all the preaching, set all the example, and emitted all the light that was diffused throughout his diocese. The other clergy had some share in the performance of these duties. They " preached the word and taught from house to house." There was one star to give light to each church : but this light » Matthew ii, 18. THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES NOT PRELATES. Ill did not proceed from a single individual, it emanated from a number — from the collective body of the ministers of religion. The star expresses the whole light appropriated to each church, and is the emblem, not of a single minister, but of its ministers collectively. And so also is tho angel, for " the angels are the stars. " * Another difficulty no less formidable arises from your previous argument. You insisted that Timothy was diocesan bishop of Ephesus. Supposing thatyou had succecded,though ithfts been proved that you have miserably failed in establishing this position, then you cast a stigma upon the character of your supposed prelate. Pererius,f Alcazar. J and others, tes- tify that ho was alive when this epistle was written. So the zealous and devoted Timothy became an apostate and "lost his first love."§ Unless you are ready to do gross injustice to the character of this eminent disciple, you must either deny him or deny the angel to be the prelate of this church. If, indeed, there was a diocesan bishop in Ephesus at this time, he was no credit to the episcopal bench, whoever he might be. There is a second grand defect in your rea- soning upon this point. Having announced tho discovery of diocesan bishops, you are bound to shew that theso persons possessed and exercised those exclusive rights which, " according to the ideas of the Church of Eng- land," belong only to her prelates ; you are bound to show that they, and they alone, were authorized to govern tho church, to ordain ministers, and to consecrate buildings. But of this there is no evidence. The three texts adduced 1 1 prove nothing to your purpose. I will examine them all ; " the angel of the Church of Ephesus is approved, because he had tried them who said they were apostles, and were not. " Where is the evidence of ex- clusive power in this ? It is no more than the duty, and will be the practice of every true believer, for it is enjoined on all members of tho church. " Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world." 5[ Your next text is equally wide of the mark. "The angel of Pergamos is condemned because he had them in His church that held the doctrine of Balaam." But how do you prove, that among the presbyters this doctrine prevailed ? There is no evidence that they were the persons upon whom disci- pline was to be exercised. No doubt gross errors had crept into this and other churches, but there is not one syllable to show that any of the teachers were concerned in the propa- gation of them. We read indeed of the woman Jezebel, in the Church of Thyanraj that "cal- led herself a prophetess, and both taught and seduced others to commit fornication;** but I • Rev. i, 20. * In Apec. c. ii. * Com. in Apnc. in e. ii, .?. \olitia, p. 301, where lie cites Lyra and Kybera to tliis effect. I Rev. ii, 4. II Letters p. 8.3. IF 1 John, iv, I. *» R e v. ii, 20. hope you will not rank her among the clergy of the church. You proceed, " The angel of Laodicea is commanded to be watchful, and to strengthen them who are ready to die," " other- wise the Lord threatens to come to hiin as a thief in the night." This was not addressed, though you say so, to the angel of the Church of Laodicea, but to that of Sardis.* I notice this in passing, only to show your habitual inac- curacy. The exhortation to watchfulness, and the threatening that the Lord might come as a thief in the night, are strange arguments to prove Diocesan Episcopacy. Similar war- nings are addressed to all without distinction in other parts of Scripture : " What I say unto you," says our Divine Redeemer, " I say unto all, watch." f And Peter uses the same ex- pression, as you have quoted, when he reminds all believers of the suddenness with which they may be called to an account " The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night.'' £ You surely will not say that these warnings are addressed only to diocesan bishops. These expressions therefore give no support to your position, that there were prelates havingthe sole power of government and discipline in the Church. The meaning which you attempt to fix upon them is opposed to the exercise of that au- thority which Christ bestowed upon the elders of this church. I have formerly proved that every ordinary power left by him was, beyond all doubt, vested in presbyters. One part of Scripture cannot be opposed to another ; and it is therefore impossible that any term or ex- pression in the book of Revelation can be rightly interpreted, if it be said to lodge the ex- clusive privilege of government and discipline in the hands of bishops, as different from pres- byters. Your interpretation must be wrong, for it makes one text of the Bible stand in direct opposition to a multitude of others. There is therefore absolutely not the shadow of proof that prelates, or any thing like them, are referred toby the author of the Revelations. Many learned advocates of your system have acknowledged this, and your whole argument amounts to nothing more than a gratuitous assumption of the point to be proved. I quote the views of bishop Slillingfleet, no mean au- thority,—" If in the prophetical style an unity may he set down by way of representation of a multitude, what evidence can be brought from the name that by it some ono particular person must be understood:' And by this means Timothy may avoid being charged with leaving his first love, which lie must of neces- sity be by those that make him the angel of the Church of Ephesus, at the time of writing these epistles. Neither is this any ways solved by the answer given, that the name angel is representative of the whole church, and so there is no necessity the angel should be personally guilty of it. For first, it seems strange that the whole diffusive body of the church should be charged with a crime, by the name of the angel, and he that is particularly meant by that name should be free from it. • Rev. iii, 1— 3. + .Mark xiii, 37. t 2 Peter iii, 10 112 THE ANGELS OF THE CHURCHES NOT PRELATES. As if a prince should charge the mayor of a corporation as guilty of rebellion, and by it should only mean that the corporation was guilty, but the mayor was innocent himself. Secondly, if many things in the epistles be di- rected to the angel, but yet so as to concern the whole body, then of necessity the angel must be taken as representative of the body, and then why may not the word angel be taken only by way of representation of the body it- self, either of the whole church, or which is far more probable, of the consessus or order of pres- byters in that church ? " * And then he calls this and such arguments " miserably uncon- cluding arguments. " Your testimonies from antiquity upon this point assert nothing more than that there were bishops or presidents hi several churches — a statement which, if admitted, will neither serve your cause nor injure mine. Look at any list of ministers of the presbyterian church, and you will find one in each town or presby- tery marked as moderator or president, and yet no one dreams that he is a diocesan bishop. I observe that you refer f to BlondeVs Apolo- gia, in which, according to your statement, that learned presbyterian calls the angels " Ex- archs, or chief governors of the churches." Blondel' s book extends to upwards of 500 pages, and yet you give no reference either to page or section. I fear that in this case you have never been Messed with a sight of the original, for Blondel' s statement is shamefully misrepresented. The testimony which has been so severely handled hi its progress to your pages, stands thus: — "To them, that is to the angels or presidents as to the Exarchs of the entrusted flock, as well the good as the bad ac- tions (of the churches) could fairly be impu- ted."! It wn ^ ^e seen that you have foisted the words " chief governors" into the quota- tion from Blondel, and that while he repre- sents the angels as parish ministers or Ex- archs of a flock,you quote him as pronouncing the angels to have been diocesan bishops and " chief governors of the churches." In the same paragraph Blondel states, that it is the duty of the angel " to excite the whole brotherhood by diligent exhortations to the honourable con- test of piety and the faithful offices of charity, and to commend the same by his prayers to God." There, you will perceive, are the spe- cial duties of a parish minister, and I hope you are now convinced that the honest presbyterian never dreamt of converting the angels into pre- lates. Augustine, to whom you have referred, is an evidence in my favour, not in yours, for he interprets the angels to be the ministers of the churches.^ He calls them also indeed pre- sidents of the churches, (Propositi Ecclesia- rum) ; but this and similar terms do not point out a superior order of prelates, as you intend * Ircn. p 336. + Letters, p. 86. t " lis ceu i^ap^ois commissi gregis tam xarogQa- f^ara qnam pudenda ex asquo et imputari potuere." — Preface to the Apologia, p. fi. I " Angelis Ecclesiarum loquitur id est Praedicatoribus popuWum."— Ep. 132 et Horn. 2. your readers to suppose, for they are frequent- ly applied to presbyters.* The following, both ancient and modern authors, are opposed to you : Amhrosius, Ausbertus, Primasius the great, Haymo, Beda, Richard, Thomas, Fulk, Pox, and Perkins. Your last sentence on this point demands a word of observation. " Episcopacy," that is, Church of England, not Scripture episcopacy, " is a divine institution, for Jesus himself holds the stars in his right hand."-f- According to you the prelates are the stars, and they are the only persons whom Christ supports and protects, the inferior clergy being no objects of his care, and having none of his blessing. " Methinks, " says Dr. Henry More, " it is extremely harsh to conceit that these seven stars are merely the seven bishops of any particular churches of Asia, as if the rest were not supported nor guided by the hand of Christ; or as if there were but seven in his right hand, but all the rest in his left. Such high representations cannot be appropriated to any seven particu- lar churches whatsoever. "J Before closing this part of the subject, I am compelled to take notice of a misstatement of my views which you have thought fit to give. A hero has been known, after running from the field, to set up a man of straw, then to cut it in pieces, and raise the shout of victory. Such is your conduct; you give, to use the mildest term, an unfair representation of what I said, and then, with the assistance of Gro- tius, you most valiantly destroy it. Did you calculate upon impunity when you acted thus ? Did you suppose your misstatement might pass undetected ? If such were your hopes, you were greatly deceived. The volume in which my views were first recorded is no scarce book. The exposure of your conduct by me is now almost unnecessary, for it has already been detected and exposed by multitudes. Those for whom you write may regard you as infallible ; but presbyterians are too shrewd to he so easily imposed upon. " It seems," you are pleased to say, " it seems to be your opi- nion that by this term (angel) the whole church was addressed." § This never was my opinion. Thus you see that in your search for dioce • san episcopacy, you are met with difficulties numerous and insurmountable ; and well am I convinced that nothing but the desperate na- ture of your cause could have led you to build the fabric of prelacy upon such a sandy foun- dation. " Those letters sustain the cause. I am advocating," || says Mr. Boyd. " It is a miserable unconcluding argument," ^[ says my lord bishop of Worcester. » "Presbyters are called ■r^oiXja/ by Synesius and Eusebius, it ■%oiostle, or " presbyters " with Polycarp, is of no consequence, as both of them speak of two orders only in the Philip - pian church, and not of three. Wherever one of these names is employed, the other is omit- ted, proving, as clearly as the nature of things will admit, that the words are synonymous. Can any thing be more plain, than that the bi- shops of Paul and the presbyters of Polycarp, were the same class of officers? I have to thank you for this additional witness, who tes- tifies so clearly, that, the churches of Smyrna and Philippi, at this early period, maintained the presbyterian system of government and discipline, and that prelacy was then totally unknown. From the ample and satisfactory manner in which the testimony of Ignatius has been al- ready disposed of, I do not feel it necessary to enter farther upon its examination. I pause only to observe, what is with you an ordinary occurrence — a blunder in chronology. Your mistakes and inaccuracies are becoming so frequent, as I advance, that had I thought of it in time, it had been an easier task to have pointed out your occasional deviations into the paths of accuracy and truth; these being "like angel visits, few and far between. " You re- ferred me this moment to the epistle of Poly- carp to the Philippians, where I find the follow- ing : " What you know certainly of Ignatius and those that are with him signify unto us. " It is plain from this, that Ignatius was living when this epistle was written, which, according to you, was in 116, but in almost the same breath you say, " This primitive father " * 1 Peter, v, 1. FROM ANTIQUITY. 119 (Ignatius,) "closed his life by martyrdom about 107. "* Now, let me remind you that Ignatius has lent his help to you in many a difficulty. You have often had recourse to him when Scripture and history were against you. I cannot but declare that your treatment of the worthy man is marked with base in- gratitude. When you have made your most of him, and he is no longer serviceable, you unceremoniously attempt to put him out of the way; you doom him to martyrdom in 107, when lo ! Polycarp, your own witness, pro- duces him in 1 l(i. Acknowledging that "this line of proof is not thoroughly complete "f or, as you ought to have said, is decidedly opposed to prelacy, you come to a later period and refer to Irenanis. Your quotation runs thus : "We can reckon up those who by the apostles were made bi- shops in their churches and their successors, even to our own times ;" and then some names are mentioned of those who were said to have been bishops in different churches. When speaking of Clement, you insist that he meant by bishops, " pastors of congregations." But now you find it necessary to make them ap- pear in a new character, and by a process of theological chemistry, the bishops of Irenams are metamorphosed into diocesans. In • Prcs- byterianism Defended,'} I produced the clear- est evidence that Iremeus esteemed bishops and presbyters to be the same. You have not condescended one word of reply to this evi- dence, but you bring him once more into the field, as if nothing had happened. It is easy to make a flourish about answering an oppo- nent, but to take up such points only as may be convenient, and to leave difficulties un- touched, is only to deceive the public. Such a course is discreditable in any controversialist, but in one professing to " notice all the prin- cipal points" it is totally inexcusable. To make your quotations of any use to the cause which you advocate, you ought to have shown that by bishops, Irenreus intended pre- lates, such as those of the Church of England, with the exclusive powers of discipline, ordi- nation and government Such bishops they assuredly were not. The venerable father never dreamt of such an interpretation of his words. So far from supposing them to be of a distinct and superior order, with exclusive powers and privileges, he esteemed bishops and presbyters to be one order, for he ascribes the preservation of the apostolical doctrine to the succession of presbyters, which before he * Letters, p. 9-5. Eusebius, in his Chronicle, places the death of Ignatius in 110, and Marianus Scotus in 112. "Ami lastly," says archbishop Wake, " to name no more, our most exact bishop Lloyd, followed therein by the late critique upon Uaronius, Antonius Pagi, yet later than any ; to wit, in the year that the great earth- quake fell out at Antimh.and from which Trajan him- m-II hardly escaped j which, as Jo. Milela accounts it, and is followed therein by bishop Ussher in his Com- putation, was in the year 116." (Waki-'s Preliminary Discourse of the Martyrdom of St. Ignatius.) Mosheim also places it in 1 hi. (Commentaries, vol. 2, p. 61.) + Letters, p, 97. J Page 127. had done to bishops. You have quoted one passage, but your memory, most conveniently treacherous, forgets the other. I again submit it to your consideration : " Wherefore, it be- hoves us to hearken to those who are presby- ters in the church — to those who, as we have shown, have their succession from the apos- tles; who together with the succession of the episcopate have also received the gift of tho truth, according to the pleasure of the Father." Let me add, at the same time, the observa- tion of bishop Stillingfleet: " And what strange confusion must this cause in any one's mind that seeks for a succession of episcopal power over presbyters from the apostles by the tes- timony of Irenajus, when he so plainly attri- butes both the succession to presbyters and the episcopacy, too, which he speaks of." Before proceeding farther, I beg your con- sideration of the following candid acknowledg- ment of a writer of your own church. When speaking of the books of Justin Martyr, he observes : " As to bishops distinct from pres- byters, we have no evidence except that of Ignatius, for the two first centuries. Clemens and Polycarp most clearly recognize but two orders. Barnabas and Hennas have nothing very distinct on the subject. Justin mentions only two officers in the church in his time, whom he calls president (^onrrus) and dea- con (Ziaxovos). Irenrcus uses the term bi- shop and presbyter indiscriminately. Thus we sec the weight of evidence, during the two first centimes, is against the three orders, which may naturally create a suspicion that those passages in Ignatius which refer to them are interpolations, for he stands alone in what he states, for the two first centuries, and not only .alone, but opposed by the strongest au- thorities, during that period."* Mark the ad- mission: " The weight of evidence during th e two first, centuries is against the three orders," that is, against the views of the Church of England. You introduce your next witness, Clemens Alexandrinus, with the words, " Let me trou- ble you with another quotation ;" and your first sentence shows that the writings of Cle- mens have given considerable " trouble " and uneasiness to yourself. The reason of this is obvious. You are forced to acknow- ledge that he is in the habit of " speaking of all ministers of the church under the names presbyters and deacons ;"f and then you ad- roitly escape the difficulty by saying, " It would be turning aside from my present object to enter into an explanation of this expres- sion." In the presbytorian view, no explana- tion is necessary. The words of Clement are sufficiently plain. They prove that presby- tery was the system of the church in his day, nor do I well know in what terms he could have shown it more plainly than by including all the ministers of the church under the nanus of presbyter* and deacons. But this is the very point that demand* explanation from i/aii, for it stands in direct opposition to the * Misopapisticus, p. 67. + Letters, p. 99. 120 EXAMINATION OF TESTIMONIES principles you advocate, and completely over- throws the system of prelacy. The apostle Paul used the same form of expression re- garding the ministers of the Church of Philip- pi, including them all under two classes, bi- shops and deacons. We have seen Clemens Romanus adopting precisely the same lan- guage, and describing all the officers of the primitive churches as bishops and deacons. We find Polycarp speaking in the same way of the ministers of the Church of Philippi in his time, and designating them " presbyters and deacons," and now Clemens of Alexandria, yourself being the judge, follows in their steps and adopts the same language. With this mass of evidence opposed to you, with your own witnesses, one and all exclaiming against your perversion of their meaning, you placidly observe, " It would be turning aside from my present object to enter into an explanation of this expression."* How prudent the resolve ! O, but you rejoin — " The Church of England uses the expression, ' bishops and curates,' in the liturgy ;" that is, she departs not only from scriptural principles, but from scriptural lan- guage, and coins a new word (curates), to in- clude two orders of her clergy. It is a most extraordinary mode of argumentation for a prelatist to call upon his opponent for an ex- planation of the inaccuracies and inconsisten- cies of the Church of England. I confess my- self unequal to the task. If, indeed, any distinction was made at this period between bishop and presbyter, its na- ture and extent are not marked in the passages you have adduced, and they are therefore use- less to your cause. In the following passage, presbyters are spoken of as occupying the highest place of official authority: " Just so in the church the presbyters are entrusted with the dignified ministry, the deacons with the subordinate. Both kinds of services the an- gels perform to God in the administration of this lower world, "f Here the distinction is strongly marked between presbyter and dea- con ; but is it not plain from his words, that Clemeut considered the distinction between bishop and presbyter as even in his days com- paratively unworthy of notice ? I willingly pass on to the consideration of Tertullian, and give your leading quotation in your own words : " The power of baptism is lodged with the bishop, and may also be exer- cised by presbyters and deacons, but not with ■ out the bishop's commission. " " This is a proof, " you observe, " of different functions as well as a proof of a diversity of ranks. " J It might be enough to say in reply that Tertullian does not give the slightest hint that any diffe- rence that might have existed in his time be- tween bishops and presbyters was by divine right, or that one class of ministers possessed the exclusive privileges of ordination and gov- ernment which England and Rome confine to prelates. But then you assert that " there is * Letters p. 99. + Stromat. vii, p. 830. t Letters, p 100. a proof of a difference in functions. " Had you thought fit to finish the sentence which you had commenced, and not stopped abruptly in the middle of it, your readers might have seen that Tertullian had no such lofty ideas of the peculiar privileges of the clergy as your party insists upon. By the passage as it stands, in your letter, he is made to say that the bi- shop alone had the power of baptizing; an opin- ion which the venerable father immediately denies. It is only an act of justice to give the remainder of the sentence : " Yet not without the authority of the bishop, for the honour of the church, which being safe, peace is safe, otherwise even laymen have the right. "* You will perceive Tertullian rested this privilege not upon divine authority, but upon the honour of the church, and were this out of view, he gives it as his opinion that even a layman had the right. If you attach such value to the beginning of this passage, as to make it a suf- ficient evidence for a distinct order of clergy, how can you refuse, on the authority of the end of it, to grant with your " sister " of Rome the power of baptism to laymen ? With regard to your other quotation from the same writer, I have to observe that you at- tempt to deduce from it what it by no means contains, namely, that there can be no true churches that cannot trace their origin to apostles or apostolic men, and on this quota- tion you ground the demand, " Let them pro- duce the original of their churches." (I stop not here to acknowledge, on the part of pres- byterians, the urbanity of your conduct, in ad- dressing them in the language used to here- tics of old.) Had you made yourself better acquainted with the train of argument pur- sued by Tertullian, you would have discover- ed the expression of a sentiment not exactly suitable to your purpose. He proposes to heretics two ways of establishing their claim to be ranked among the churches of Christ. The first is that of direct succession from the apostles. This you have brought forward. But there is another mode, of which he treats in the continuation of the passage, but contin- uations are not always convenient for people of your school. He adds, " some such thing they (the heretics) may feign ; for after their blasphemy, what would they not do ? But although they should feign it, they will prevail nothing. For their doctrine itself, when compared with apostolic, will pronounce, from its diversity and contrariety, that it has neither apostle nor apostolic man for its author ; -be- cause, as the apostles have not taught doc- trines inconsistent with one another, so also apostolic men have not published doctrines contrary to the apostles, unless those who learned from the apostles have preached dif- ferently. Wherefore by this standard they shall be judged by those churches which, al- though they can produce none of the apostles or apostolic men as their founder, as being much posterior, which are now being founded, * Strove, lib. vi. FROM ANTIQUITY. 121 yet agreeing in the same faith, are esteemed not less apostolic on account of consanguinity of doctrine."* Now, sir, to your demand, which I will not characterise as it deserves — " Produce the original of your churches" — I reply, if it be personal succession you require, we have suc- cessionasclearasKngland'sboasted hierarchy ; and if itbe succession of doctrine that is deman- ded, we appeal to the unerring word of God, that our church, free and united, holds and teaches the same doctrines taught by the apostles. We now come to the last and only remain- ing hope of prelacy. Upon the testimony of Cyprian, your cause is now suspended. Hero you adduce two passages. Your first contains nothing to which presbyterians may not sub- scribe. Ordination is by bishops, and the go- vernment of the church is entrusted to bishops. If you choose to play upon the word "bishop," and without any authority to take it in its mo- dern and not in its Scripture signification, it cannot be helped ; but until you prove that you and Cyprian are at one in your ideas of a bishop, the quotation is useless to your cause. The beginning of the passage has received from you a remarkable prelatical gloss. It has been often said, that every thing loses by transla- tion, except a church of England bishop ; and you are resolved that the cause of prelacy will not suffer in this way. Your quotation com- mences thus, — "Our Lord, intending to estab- lish the episcopal dignity, together with the con- stitution of his church." If I might presume so far, I would render the passage thus — " Our Lord, whose commands we ought to fear and obey, instituting the honour of a bi- shop, and the order of his church," &c. ;f that is, our Lord intended the ministerial office to be high and honourable, since to those who filled it such important trusts were committed. Where is the intimation from this passage, that Cyprian regarded prelacy as of " aposto- lic institution ? " The title, presidents (pro- positi), which you quote, does not convey the idea of prelatical dignity. It was often applied to presbyters, and by Cyprian himself, as it is found in his third and fourth epistles.* Upon the next passage you speak with greater confidence. No wonder ; for it is the last sheet anchor, the last dependence of your cause, yon state it to be " a rebuke drawn from Cyprian, by the conduct of his presby- ters, who had ventured, in his absence, to re- store to communion some who had fallen away in the time of persecution." § As usual, you state but one side of the question, and draw your conclusion from a garbled testimony. Cyprian blames the presbyters for acting with out him ; but you should at the same time hare given his acknowledgment, that he had 11. i power to exercise discipline independently Of tin in. Had you taken the trouble of read- ing Iris 26th epistle, you might have found him * Pace 213— Paris, I r,7. j. + Dorpinas ooster, coJur praBoepta metuere et ohser- vare debemus, eptseopl bonorem, et nrwlndtn raaerati- onem disponens in evangelio loquitur.— Kpist. xxxiii. J I'riepositis et pleui. ,'. Letler*, p. 1(12. speaking on the very same subject, as in the passage you have quoted, namely, " the resto- ration to communion of some who had fallen away in a time of persecution." And does he. arrogate to himself the sole right of jurisdic- tion ? Does he sjmni the idea, that any might interfere with a privilege exclusively his own ? Far from it. He declares the very contrary. Read the following extract from his address to the presbyters and deacons— " which affair," says he, " awaits the council and sentence of us all. I myself dare nut prejudge it, nor dare I alone determine a matter which belongs to us in common."* It appears, then, on the testimony of Cy- prian himself, that in his time presbyters ex- ercised tho right of jurisdiction, and were in this respect on an equality with bishops. And farther, presbyters were authorized, in his day, not only to perform, but to perform alyue, what is now supposed to be the exclusive duties of a bishop. Witness his address to presbyters and deacons, in his 5th epistle : " Since the condition of the place will not permit me to be present, I beg, for the sake of your faith and religion, that you perform your own and my duties, that nothing may be wanting." He here enjoins them to discharge the duties of his office as well as of their own, without any limitation, without any exception. Had divine authority secured to him, as a prelate, the power of government and the power of ordination, he could not have delegated them to others, any more than a minister at the pre- sent day could delegate the duties of his office to a layman, and authorize him to dispense the sealing ordinances of the gospel. Re- peated testimonies of a similar kind are to be found throughout the writings of Cyprian, all testifying that ecclesiastical government was to be exercised in council, and was not to be assumed by any individual. I note below r a few of these passages, which you may peruse at your leisure.f But supposing, as you would lead your readers to imagine, that your second quota- tion from Cyprian stood alone, and without any other passages to explain its meaning, it would fail in proving a difference of rank among ministers. Your argument is nothing but a mere begging of the question. You take it for granted, that Cyprian was perfectly right in the rebuke which he delivered, and that he exorcised power over presbyters by divine au- thority. But where is the evidence of this? I know that Cyprian tried to aggrandize him self, and that he used every effort to establish his own authority. I know, loo, that at this period, tho tank of prelacy began to spring up, and to cause dissension and heart-burn- ings in the church. In all probability, the presbyters whom you are pleased to condemn as guilty of " insubordination and Corah like presumption,"| wore nun struggling for the purity of the faith. Similar epithets of con- * Foist. 2fi. + Ep 19, p. 43. Ep. 20. p. 43. Ep. 24, p. SO. Ep. 29, pp.56, 56. F.p. 3i', p. 05. E p. 34, p. 60. X Utters, p. 101. 122 ANTIQUITY FAVOURABLE TO PRESBYTERY. tempt and abuse are heaped even now upon the heads of those who would stem the tide of tyranny and intolerance. The following view of this period is deserv- ing of your attention. It is from Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, a text-hook used in Trinity College, Dublin. " The face of things," says Mosheim, " hegan now to change in the Christian church. The ancient method of ecclesiastical government seemed in general still to subsist, while at the same time, by im- perceptible steps, it varied from the primitive rule, and degenerated towards the form of a religious monarchy. For the hishops aspired to higher degrees of power and authority than they had formerly possessed, and not only violated the rights of the people, but also made gradual encroachments upon the privileges of the preshyters. And, that they might cover these usurpations with an air of justice and an appearance of reason, they published new doc- trines concerning the nature of the church and of the episcopal dignity, which, however, were in general so ohscure, that they themselves seem to have understood them as little as those to whom they were delivered. One of the prin- cipal authors of this change in the government of the church was Cyprian, who pleaded for the power of the hishops with more zeal and vehemence than had ever been hitherto em- ployed in that cause, though not with an un- shaken constancy and perseverance ; for in difficult and perilous times, necessity some- times ohliged him to yield, and to submit se- veral things to the judgment and authority of the church."* I have now, sir, done with your testimonies from the fathers. I have proved Clement and Polycarp, even from the passages which you have yourself selected, to have heen sturdy preshyterians. Ignatius has heen dissected by my hrother who precedes me. I have shown, that Irenams and Clement of Alexan- dria esteemed hishops and preshyters to he the same, that Tertullian never dreamt of pleading a divine right for diocesan episcopacy, and that Cyprian had no such ideas of the office and powers of a bishop as prevail among prelatists at the present day. What now becomes of your assertion, — " these men, of different times and of different latitudes, all with one voice proclaim that episcopacy (prelacy) was the system which governed the church in their days, and utter more than opinion, for they assert it as an unquestioned fact, that it came down from apo- stolic institution ?"f " It has often made me smile," says Sherlock, " with a mixture of pity and indignation, to see what a great noise the Roman disputants made among women and children, and the meanest sort of people, #ith quotations out of the fathers, whom they pre- tended to be all on their side." " I shall be glad," says Anderson, after quoting the above, " I shall be glad if this be not the character of some other folks, as well as the Roman dispu- tants." * Vol. i, p. 265. + Letters, p. 103. Thus, sir, I have accompanied you into the field of antiquity. I have followed your de- vious steps, until I hear the exclamation, " I have done with the fathers." You cannot now refuse to accompany me a little farther, and listen to the early writers of the church, ex- pressly declaring presbytery to have been of divine appointment, and prelacy the result of human invention. ANTIQUITY FAVOUHABLE TO PRESBYTERY. The length to which my observations are extending, warns me that brevity is required. I shall therefore quote only a few of the many passages that present themselves in the writ- ings of antiquity. The first that I adduce is from Chrysostom. When observing on 1 Timothy, 3d chapter, where the apostle, having described the bi- shop, and given an account of his office, pas- ses immediately to the office of the deacon, he observes, — " That between the bishop or pres- byter there is little or no difference ; and what the apostle had ascribed to the bishop, the same also is proper to the presbyter, since to the presbyter also the care of the church is committed." Where is the diversity of rank or difference of function to be found here ? This eloquent divine, following the footseps of the apostle, declares the identity of bishop and presbyter, and virtually pronounces pre- lacy an imscriptural innovation. Let me next quote a passage from Theodo- ret, who was an eloquent, copious, and learned writer, and one of the most famous expositors of his age. His words are these : " The apos- tles call a presbyter a bishop, as we showed when we expounded the epistle to the Philip- pians, which may be also learned from this place ; for, after the precepts proper to bishops, he describes the things that agree to deacons. But, as I said, of old they called the same men both bishops and presbyters." I hope you will deem this testimony sufficiently explicit. My next quotation is from the works of the celebrated Augustine, whose fame extended over the whole Christian world. He thus speaks : " The apostle Paul proves that he understood a presbyter to be a bishop. When he ordained Timothy a presbyter, he instructs him what kind of a person he ought to create a bishop ; for what is a bishop unless the first presbyter, that is, the chief priest ? in fine, he calls his co-priests not otherwise than his co- presbyters."* Augustine here asserts that the apostle Paul understood a presbyter and bi- shop to be the same, and recognises the right of a presbyter to ordain a bishop — an opinion utterly repugnant to all the arrangements of diocesan episcopacy. It would be easy to multiply quotations from the fathers, in which the identity of presbyter and bishop is asserted, but I will content my- self with giving one more. This will be from Jerome. His high character for talent and » Tom. iv, Col. 780, b. ANTIQUITY FAVOURABLE TO PRESBYTERY. 123 integrity gives an importance to his writings above any of the fathers. Augustine hears a remarkable testimony to the vast extent of his acquirements.* Milner lias said of him — " Ho was, in truth, the most learned of the Roman fathers, and was eminent botli for ge- nius and industry."-]- He is characterised by Erasmus as, "without controversy, the most learned of all Christians, and the prince of di- vines."! Bingham, one of your principal as- sistants, has testified—" St Jerome will be allowed to speak the sense of the ancients;" and bishop Hard emphatically calls him " the ablest of the fathers, and the most esteemed." If any dependence can be placed uppn the writings of antiquity, his decision is of the greatest moment. A more competent witness is not to be found among the fathers of the church. This venerable and respected writer, not merely refers to this subject incidentally, but in different parts of his works he expressly treats on the original constitution of the church, and argues against the pre-eminence of one minister above another. He pronounces dio- cesan episcopacy to have been an invention of man, and not a divine institution, and declares its first appearance to have been a departure from apostolic purity and practice. It had been well, before you staked your literary reputation with tho cause of prelacy, that his works had been examined, and his unanswer- able arguments considered. My space allows me to cite only ono passage. Jeromo states liis view of the scriptural constitution of the church, in his commentary on Titus i, 5 — " That thou 6houldest ordain presbyters in every city, as I had appointed thee." " What sort of presbyters ought to be ordained, he shows afterwards. ' If any be blameless, the husband of ono wife,' &.c. ; and then adds, ' for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God,' &c. 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 among different people, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the churches were governed by tho common council of presbyters. But ufterwards, when everyone accounted those whom he baptized as belonging to himself and not to Christ, it was decreed throughout tho whole world, that one chosen from among the presbyters should be put over tho rest, and that the whole care of the church should bo committed to liim, and the seeds of schisms taken away. " Should any one think that this is my pri- vate opinion, and not the doctrine of tho Scrip- tures, let him read the words of the apostle in his epistlo to tho Philippians. \ Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which arc at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons,' &c Philippi is a single city of Macedonia, and certainly in one city there could not be several bishops us tiny are n<>\\ styled; but as they at that time * Nemo homiiiumrcivit quoit Hieronymus ignoravit. t Milner's Cliurch History, cent, v, p. 367. \ Cave His. Lett. Scrip. ICccles. p. 171. called the rery same persons bishops whom they called presbyters, tho apostle has spoken indifferently of bishops as of presbyters. " Should this matter yet appear doubtful to any one, unless it be proved by an additional testimony, it is written in the Acts of the Apostles, that when Paul had come to Miletum he sent to Ephcsus, and called the presbyters of that church, and among other things, said to them — ' take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, ' Take particular notico, that calling the presbyters of tho single city of Ephesus, he afterwards names the same per- sons bishops. " After farther quotations from the epistle to the Hebrews, and from Peter, he proceeds — " Our intention in this remark is to show, that among the ancients, presbyters and bishops were the very same. But that, by little and little, the plants of dissensions might be plucked up, the whole concern was devolved upon an individual. As the presbyters there- fore know that they are subjected by the cits- torn of the church to him who is their president (pnepositus), so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters, more by custom than by any appointment of the Lord. "* Here is on account of the origin and rise of prelacy by a father whom the highest authori- ties of the Church of England admit to have been the ablest and most learned among the writers of antiquity ; and, if your assertion be correct, that we " are fully justified in appeal- ing to tho fathers as historians of opinion, "f his testimony and arguments utterly destroy tho " hay, wood, and stubble " of gorgeous prelacy. Mark well the statements of Jerome : — 1st, He positively denies that there is any divine right for the superiority of bishop above presbyter, and he argues from these names being applied indiscriminately to all ministers of the gospel — from the number of bishops in our city — from the directions given to all alike — and from tho powers which they originally possessed. 2nd, He states it as an historical fact, that bishops and presbyters were the same, until tho devil interfered and made parties in religion. 3rd, He declares that this change in the government of the church took place not suddenly, but by degrees. J 4th, Jerome states it as an historical fact, that the deration of one presbyter above another teas a mere human invention, that our Lord Jesus Christ never &p pointed it, and that this was known and ac- knowledged in tho time at which ho wrote. You have now the words of Chrysostom, as- serting the identity of bishop and presbyter. You have Theodoret declaring that in apos- tolic times the same men were both bishops and presbyters. You have heard Augustine asserting that presbyters had rights of which England has now deprived them; and lastly, you have the learned and venerated Jerome proving presbytery to be the appointment of God, and prelacy the device of man. 'What now can be said for the system of diocesan episcopacy but " weighed in the balance an4 found wanting ?" * Hieronymi Com. in Tit. + Letters, p. 92. : Paulatim. 124 PRESBYTERY IDENTIFIED WITH PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY. PRESBYTERY IDENTIFIED WITH PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY. Let me dwell for a moment on another cir- cumstance, which tends still farther to identify modern presbytery with primitive episcopacy. In early ages the bishop's charge or district was never called a diocese. The word used, for some centuries, to express a bishopric, is that from which the term parish is derived, and the vdgoixoi or inhabitants of each town and city, if they were sufficiently numerous, had their own bishop or head. * All the people of the bishop's parish were accustomed to meet together in one place for the cele- bration of divine worship, where the bishop preached and prayed. The bishop had but one communion table in his -whole diocese, at which all the members of his flock received the sacrament of the Lord's supper, which was ad- ministered by him. Now, in those days and places it was customary for each member of the church to communicate three times a-week, on the Lord's day, Wednesday, and Friday; but this would havebeen impossible had the bishop's charge been any thing like a modern diocese. The bishop had also the superintendence of the Christian poor, the widows, orphans, and strangers, within the bounds of his charge. Certificates of membership, when believers passed from one place to another, were all signed by the bishop. And farther, it was thought becoming that the bishop should know the name of every individual of his flock, and that none should he married without his- pre- vious advice and consent, f A fact, stated by Cellarius,J is herd worthy of notice. He informs us that the island of Clauda, mentioned in Acts, xxvii, 16, had ori- ginally a bishop. The dimensions of this is- land are so small that, were a church placed in its centre, the most distant of its inhabitants would have to travel only about a mile and a quarter to attend upon its services. Suppos- ing this bishop of Clauda to have been a regu- lar diocesan, it might afford an interesting sub- ject of investigation to a person so " partial to historical testimony."^ to ascertain the num- ber of parishes in this primitive diocese, the duties performed by the dean and archdeacon, the number of curates employed to read prayers in the cathedral, &c. At the same time, I should rather venture to suppose that the sys- tem which then prevailed resembled presby- terianism more nearly than prelacy, and that the bishop of Clauda was the pastor of the island, who laboured in word and doctrine. It appears from Bingham, || that at the time of the council of Sardica, in 347, Tenedos * Bingham's Eccl. Antiquities, bookix, c. 2, sect. 1. + A mass of evidence upon this subject is brought together from the ancient writers in Lord Chancellor King's Constitution, Discipline, &c, of the Christian Church. Abundant proof will be found in this valuable book of all the particulars mentioned above. t Notitia Orbis Antiqui, p. 8-26. Cant. 1503. The island of Clauda is situated in the Mediterranean sea, S.W. of Crete. It is called Gozo by Dr. Shaw. i Letters, p. T8. II Eccl. Antiquities, Book ix, chap. 3, sect 18-. had a bishop of its own, and that this island was but ten English miles in compass. Now the extent of many an ordinary parish, at the present day, is much greater. The island of Tenedos could not have had an area of more than eight square miles ; whereas a division only of the parish of Templemore, in the north west liberties of Londonderry, covers an area of nearly twenty square miles.* It should bo recollected, that, at this period, there was but a small town in the island of Tenedos, and judging from the state of other parts of the Roman empire, we have reason to believe that not more than one tenth of the inhabitants were christians. The bishop of Tenedos was evidently just the parish minister, and nothing more. This laborious pastor had a small pa- rish and very few adherents, and, as his bishop- ric was established before the time of Constan- tine, he must have been dependent upon the voluntary contributions of his people. Good old Matthew Henry has said that " a scanda- lous maintenance makes a scandalous minis • try." I cannot tell the quantum of talent this ancient worthy may have possessed, for even curates may be greatly gifted ; but it is plain, that though a bishop undoubtedly he was, he must have had a most miserable support- When all these things are taken into account, is it possible to conceive of a primitive bishop in any other light than that of the pastor of a single parish, the minister of but one congre- gation? I grant that, in after times, the names bishop and presbyter, or elder, began to be se- parated, and that of bishop applied to the pre- sident of the presbytery or session ; but it is plain that the bishops and presbyters of a pri- mitive church were rulers of a single congre- gation, all the members of which were capable of meeting together in one place, for publio worship and the administration of the sacra- ments. This can be verified by declarations of many of the ancients, and particularly by Ignatius; for though the letters attributed to him may have been interpolated for the pur- pose of aggrandising prelacy, they were never suspected of interpolation with the view of sup- porting presbytery. In Africa, bishops were so numerous, that almost every village had its bishop ; and the African church, Dr. Stilling- fleet tells us, longest retained the primitive simplicity and humility. Episcopal sees were frequently nearer to each other than our mar- ket towns are at the present day, often within two or three miles. The names of many bi- shops are recorded, whose seats were so insig- nificant and obscure as not to be noticed by Ptolemy or any of the ancient geographers.f * " Its extreme length is nearly 10 miles, and its ex- treme hreadtli about 3J. It contains 12,611 acres, 2 roods, 21 perches," and therefore an area of neailySO square miles. Ordnance Survey of the County of Lon- donderry, vol. i, page 1. + 1 stated in the former edition, on the authority of Binius, that Sylvester called together 284 bishops,of which 139 were out of Rome or not far from it. He may be perfectly correct as to the number of bishops, but I have since examined the. canons of this council, and think, from internal evidence, that they are spurious. Binii. Concilia, Tom. i, p. 310. Paris, 1636\ PRESBYTERY IDENTIFIED WITH PRIMITIVE EPISCOPACY. 135 " It is to be observed, tbat in Asia Minor, a tract of land not much larger than the isle of Great Britain, including but two dioceses of the Roman empire, there were about 400 bishops, as appears from tho ancient Notitia; of the church."* The learned bishop Burnet says, in his observations upon the first and second canons called apostolical, " In some countries we find the bishoprics very thick set. They were pretty throng in Africk ; for, in a confe- rence which Austinc and the bishops of that province had with the Donatists, there were of bishops 286 present, and 120 absent, and 00 sees were then vacant, which in all makes 466. There were also 279 of the Donatist bishops. The sixth provincial council of Carthage had 217 bishops." According to Victor Uticensis,f from that part of Africa in which the Vandalic persecu- tion raged, 660 bishops fled, besides a great number that were murdered and imprisoned,- and many more were tolerated. \ When it is re- collected that this persecution extended to only a small portion of Africa, and that it was earned on by one denomination of christians against an- other, we may well conclude, that in that district of Africa alone, there were at least two thou- sand bishops. When all these circumstances are considered, the number and minuteness of the duties required of bishops, together with the'' vast multitudes of bishops, and when it is re- membered that the Christian population was then but small, it is plain that the ancient epis- copacy was parochial and not diocesan. The gradual diminution of the number of bi- shops in after times, tends to confirm this fact. As we pass down the stream of history, we find their number diminishing by degrees, just in proportion to the advancement of diocesan episcopacy. We are informed, that in the island of Crete, in early times, there were one hundred bishops, and in a few centuries after- wards, we find only twelve. In a small dis- trict of Asia, there were, in the third century, one hundred and /ire bishops, and when we en- quire into the ecclesiastical state of this same district, two or three centuries afterwards, we find their number reduced to nine. Many in- stances of a similar kind might be adduced. Now, this gradual diminution of bishops is the more remarkable, because, during all this time, the church was extending its boundaries, mul- titudes of converts were entering its pale, and the necessity for additional pastors was daily increasing. What conclusion are we to draw from these facts ? Is it not obvious that pri- miliii- bishops were just parish, ministers, and were then a very different class of officera from those whom you call bishops? * Bingham's Origines Ecclesiastical vol. i, p. 16& + De pcrsecutione Vandalica. * According to Bingham, book ix, chap. 2, there were only 400 bishops in the whole extent of Africa, comprehending the six Roman provinces, Tripolis, By. zacena, Africa Proconsnlaris, Mumidiu, and the two Mauritania!. In matters of this kind little conlidence can be placed in this very prejudiced antiquarian. Hil assertion, in this instance, is completely overthrown by the testimony ot Victor Uticensis, a writer of the tilth century, as quoted above. Nothing can be more pointless than the ob- servations which you mako respecting the in- troduction of prelacy into the Christian system. We have gone to the fountain-head for infor- mation. We have examined the statute-book of the gospel. We have heard what the divine lawgiver has said about the government of his church, and no sanction has been found for Dio- cesan Episcopacy. But by your account it was introduced soon afterwards. Supposing, for the 6ake of argument, that this is correct, though I have shown that the early writers are silent upon the subject, supposing it to have been introduced, which it assuredly was not, immediately after the death of the apos- tles, it by no means follows, that it had their sanction, much less that it possessed divine authority. Corruption may have entered the ■hurch at an early period, but it is corruption still. Antiquity may impart a venerable ap- pearance to any system, however absurd and unscriptural ; but it never can convert error into truth, it never can invest with the author- ity of God what his word has not taught. You call upon me to say, when prelacy " was introduced into the church," and you take for granted, what is quite erroneous, that it must have been " a sudden, abrupt, and startling movement." * No, sir, this was not the case. It was gradual in its rise and progress. Though the church was not settled during our Lord's ministry, yet even then the spirit of prelacy was at work. " There was a strife among the disciples which should be the greatest." The two sons of Zebedee aspired to be like modern prelates. They wished to sit upon thrones, and exercise official authority over their bre thren. In apostolic times, the same unhappy spirit was apparent in the language and con- duct of Diotrephes, whom the apostle John describes as one who " loveth to have pre-emi- nence — prating against us with malicious words : and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them them that would, and casteth them out of the church." f Authoritatively checked by our Lord and his apostles, prelacy made no progress while they lived. So strongly had they denounced it, so plainly was it opposed to tho spirit of the gospel, that, for a long time, it had no footing in the church. Jerome gives an account of its beginning. He states that presbytery was the original constitution of the Christian system ; that, by tho stratagems of the old Serpent, dissensions were introduced into the church ; that prelacy was introduced along with them ; and that it advanced by little and little. J As the number of converts in- creased, churches were multiplied. In over- grown parishes, some of the believers were obliged to meet in other places than where the bishop preached ami administered the sacra- ments. The prcsbvtcr, officiating in these places, maintained the same connexion with the bishop as when they ruled in common. • Letters, p. 104. t I'aulatim. + 3 John, 9, 10. 12-J RISE AND PROGRESS OF PRELACY. After some time, the town bishop began to be thought superior to village or country bishops, and to exercise some species of authority over them. The next step was the subjection of the town bishops to the bishops of the principal city of the province, and thus the ecclesiastical government was gradually cast into the same mould as the civil. This gave rise to metro- politans and patriarchs, and, last of all, to the universal bishop. Certain it is, that if there had been no de- parture from the presbyterian system, there never had been a Pope in the church. The preservation of unity was the plea for setting one minister above others. For the same rea son, a number of diocesan bishops required an archbishop j and when archbishops multiplied, metropolitans were required. Then patriarchs were necessary to keep them in order ; and, in fine, the Pope was indispensable to watch the patriarchs. These were great and extra- ordinary changes in the government of the church ; and yet it may not be very easy to point out the exact time and circumstances in which each of them took place. And does it follow from this, that they have divine autho- rity ? Are you prepared to say, that " there is no alternative open to an opponent, but to deny that there was ever such a thing in the church at all, or to admit that they were in- stituted by the inspired apostles of Christia- nity ?"* The administration of the Lord's 6upper to infants was a corruption that arose early in the church. Cyprian, Augustine and others spoke of it as a general custom. Now I suppose you will admit, if indeed you will admit any thing, that this practice had no foundation either in Scripture or apostolic example. How then do you account for its introduction and general adoption ? At what time did it first appear ? Who were the promoters of this innovation ? Was it violently opposed? Where do we hear of the disputes and struggles of which it was the cause ? Unless the most authentic and satisfactory information can be given upon these points, it follows, upon your principle, that it was not an innovation at all, but de- rived from the Apostles and sanctioned by their authority. Take another instance. The ancients not only divided the office of pastors, they divided also the office of deacons. If, as I presume, you will deny this to be of apostolic origin, I call upon you in your own words, " to say when it was introduced into the church. " How did some deacons come to have authority over others, who were called subdeacons ? The division of this office had undoubtedly no other origin than ecclesiastical arrangement, nor can any higher authority be pleaded for the division of the pastoral office. In addition to this, I might mention several forms and ceremonies which very generally prevail, but the commencement of which cannot readily be traced, (such as mixing the wine with water in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, * Letters, p. 105. prayers for the dead, &c.) Would it not be absurd to say, that they were therefore ap- pointed by our Lord and his apostles ? The custom of the chinch may be pleaded for them, but nothing more ; and no higher ground can be taken for the superiority of a bishop to a presbyter. The words of Jeremy Taylor, whom no one will suspect to be a friend to presbyterianism, are applicable to this point. In his " Dissuasive from Popery " he speaks thus : " Traditions are said to be apostolical, if they be ancient ; and if they come from we know not ivhom, they are said to come from the apostles ; and if postnate, they are called primitive : and they argued and laboriously disputed into the title of apostolic traditions, by not only^fallible, but fallacious arguments." Attend to the words of the bishop of Down and Connor,-^" If traditions come from we hnoiv not whom, they are said to come from the apostles, " Driven from the Scriptures, you have taken refuge in the regions of antiquity. All you have gained by your excursion into this wide territory is a discovery that a change took place in the original constitution of the church, and that, somehow or other, prelacy got in. You are unable or unwilling to say how or when this happened, and then you turn to me for an explanation, and demand, if I do not satisfy you, that I must acknowledge all your views to be correct, and join in the cry, " Great is Diana of the English." Your demand is most unreasonable, yet I have granted it, I have pointed out the spirit of prelacy appear- ing even in the days of the Lord, and after- wards in the times of the apostles. I have given the words of the most authentic historian of ancient times, declaring its origin, and prov- ing it to be unscriptural,havingpreviously quot- ed alaterwriter,whotracesitinthe third century gradually stealing in and corrupting the purity and simplicity of the church. I have gone further than you demanded. I have shown that it led to the establishment of a spiritual monarchy at Rome, and that in truth popery is nothing more than full-grown prelacy. Your great predilection for the studies of history and chronology emboldens me to en- quire respecting the times and circumstances in which other officers, besides diocesan bi- shops, made their appearance in the chinch. Your language would lead~ me to suppose that you can find no difficulty in settling these mat- ters, and pouring a flood of light upon many things involved in darkness and doubt. You have declared, — " I shall not move until I have consulted the evidence of history. I con- fess myself partial to historical testimony. There is a satisfactoriness in it, an accuracy, a completing of the picture, which makes me unwilling to pass on without introducing it. " * Such being your noble resolution, I call up- on you to say in what year was the bishop of Alexandria acknowledged as the chief bishop of Egypt ? In what year were archdeacons and subdeacons first appointed ? In what year * Letters, p. 77. ORIGIN OF ARCHBISHOPS, &c, IN ENGLAND. 127 were archbishops first established in Ireland ? In what year did metropolitans come into fa- shion ? When was the authority of the Ro- man pontiff first introduced into the church? It will not do to refer me to the struggles be- tween the sees of Rome and Constantinople ; but give me the year and day when the bishop of Rome was first acknowledged as the su- preme bishop of the western church. Can you r\ en tell me in what year he was first acknow- ledged as the supreme bishop of Italy ? Give me the dates when these officers first obtained the powers which they now possess, and, if possible, the days of the month and the places where these arrangements were made, and the persons present upon these occasions. If you cannot comply with these requests, all these officers are, by your own reasoning, of aposto- tolic origin ; for you say, " Is it credible, can it by any stretch of credulity be conceived, that such movements would have taken place without challenging the attention of the church, and drawing out at once vehement repre- hension and comment?* Were direct tes- timony of their origin wanting, the silence of the church on this point would be of itself pow- erful presumptive evidence that thoy sprang from the apostles themselves, and that the church took them from their hands unhesitat- ingly, submissively."f Give me the informa- tion I demand, and then I will acknowledge that " there is a satisfactoriness — a completing of the picture " truly delightful. In order to afford you some little assistance in the progress of these interesting researches, I present you with a short account of the origin of archbishops in England, and of the way in which the bishops' sees were originally settled in that kingdom. It is taken from a work, to which you have referred with approbation in your appendix, and which entitles the author, in your estimation, to a place of renown among the divines of England. With what propriety he is claimed by you, or rather by Dr. Pusey, we shall afterwards enquire. The extract is as follows: "About the year 180, long Lucius, son of Coilus, king of the Britons, hearing of the miracles and wonders done by the Chris- tians at that time, directed letters to Eleuthe- rius, bishop of Rome, desiring to receive the Christian faith from him, although there is great difference in authors about the computa- tion of the time. The good bishop, hearing the request of the king, sends him certain preachers called Fagan and Damian, who con- verted the king and people of Britain, and baptised them with the baptism and sacrament of Christ's faith. They overthrew the temples of the idols, and converted the people from their many gods, to serve one living God. Thus, true religion increasing, superstition decayed, with all other rites of idolatry. There were » Letters p. 104. + Letters, p. 105. This argument of Mr. Boyd against the prcshyterian system, is of popish origin, and was employed with ureat confidence by the Jesuit BeUarmfne, against the protestants of his time, in support of prelacy and many other corruptions of the Romish system. De Notis Ecclesia;, Lib. 0, chap. 5. then in Britain twentyeight head priests, whom they called flamines, and three archpriests who were called archflamiues, having the oversight of their manners, and as judges over the rest. These twenty-eight llamines they turned to twenty-eight bishops, and the three archflam- incs to three archbishops." * I may add, that Fagan and Damian were only presbyters, and yet they ordained both bishops and archbi- shops, f So much for the introduction of the hierarchy into England. Let us now turn for a moment to the primitive church of Ireland. That church was long distinguished for its purity and simplicity. It owned not the supremacy of Rome. The use of the Scriptures was free and commanded, and the bishops, like the bi- shops of the apostolic age, had each the charge of only one parish, and were labourers in word and doctrine. Though the population was at that time comparatively small, bishops were located not only in villages, but in many places throughout the country. The following may give some idea of their number and their duties. "We read in Nennius, that at the be- ginning St. Patrick founded 365 churches, and ordained 3G5 bishops, besides 3000 presbyters (or elders). In process of time, the number of bishops was daily multiplied, according to the pleasure of the metropolitan, (whereof Bernard much complains,) and that not only so far that every church almost had a separate bishop, but that also in some towns or cities there were ordained more than one "J You will observe that the number of bishops corresponded with the number of churches, so that there is no room for the evasion that they were bishops of different periods. I add a testimony of a similar kind, but from another source. "Till the year 1152, they (the Irish bishops) seem to have been properly chorepiscopi, or rural bishops. In Meath alone there were fourteen bishoprics, in Dub- lin thirteen. Their number, it is supposed, might amount to above three hundred. They, in the same manner with the Scottish and Pictish presbyters, exercised their functions at large as they had opportunity. " " That bishops in Ireland, " says Toland, " did in the 5th and 6th centuries signify a distinct order of men, by whom alone presbyters could be ordained, and without which kind of ordination their ministry was invalid, this I absolutely * Foxe's Rook of Martyrs, Seymour, page 75. + This is stated by Thomas Kudburnus, in his 'Ab- breviate Chronicorum : ' " Doctores ergo FaRanus et Diunianns de Consensu regis, ubi erunt archillamines, archiepisoopos et ubi flamines episcopos ordinaverunt et cons* rravrrunt.'' t The above is extracted from a Discourse on the re- ligion anciently professed by the Irish and British, by Archbishop Ussher. Dublin, lB]6,chap. viii, p. 77. In the last sentence of this extract, we are told that "in some towns or eilit ]» there were more bishops than one." tin reference to Archbishop Ussher's authority, I find the term employed [plnres] more favourable to the pres- byterian view than he baa represented it. The correct statement would have been— "in some towns or cities there were ordained many bishops." II »w much did the Irish church at that time resemble the churches of the apostolic age, when there wire many bishops in a single town. 128 EARLY IRISH CHURCH. deny, as I do that those bishops were diocesan bishops, when nothing is plainer than that the most of them had no bishoprics at all, in our modem sense, not to speak of those numerous bishops going frequently out of Ireland, not called to bishoprics abroad, and many of them never preferred there. " * The purity and simplicity of the primitive church of Ireland were briefly noticed in ' Pres- byterianism Defended.'f I there referred also to the time when the bishop of Rome first as- sumed that ecclesiastical authority which he yet so firmly holds in this part of the United Empire. In an extract from Dr. Mason, the name of Paparo was mentioned. I did not then think it necessary to narrate the doings of this person, supposing that any one ac- quainted with the history of the church In Ireland must have known them. In this it seems I was mistaken. You speak of my re- ference to " some distinguished personage called Paparo," and talk of his proceedings as if they had been quite unworthy of notice. This is strange, from a person who had ex- pressed so great a predilection for historical research. It only convinces me that the pretension to knowledge is one thing, and the possession of it another. The visit of Pa- paro to Ireland was an interesting but melan- choly event in the annals of our country. From it is to be dated its subjugation to the autho- rity of the Pope. Before this period, a por- tion of the church of Ireland was connected with the Roman see, but now the sovereign pontiff obtained a footing more firm and ex- tensive. Had you been fully aware of the fatal blight that then swept over our land, of the connection between this event and the state of religion in after times, you could not have lightly regarded it. Surely a protestant should not look on the accession of a whole people to the domination of Rome with indifference or complacency. Ussher states, on the authority of Mailros, " that in the year 1151, pope Eu- genius, by his legate, John Papiron, transmit- ted four palls into Ireland, whither a pall be- fore had never been brought. And therefore Giraldus Cambrensis, although he acknow- ledges that St. Patrick chose Armagh for his seat, and appointed it to be, as it were, a me- tropolitan see, and the proper place of the pri- macy of all Ireland, yet he affirms withal, that in very deed there were no archbishops in Ire- land, but that bishops only consecrated one another, until Johannes Papirio (or Paparo) the Pope's legate, not long since brought four palls thither."| Dr. Mason gives a similar ac- count. He observes, " It is indeed an incon- trovertible fact, and one admitted by all your eccclesiastical historians — Carew, Lanigan, Moore, and others — that John Papyro, the pope's legate, a.d. 1152, was the first who brought the peculiar vestment of a Romanist * Jamieson's Historical Account of the Ancient Cul- dees. Edin. I foil , chap, xv, p. 335. + Pa?e 129. % Ussher's Discourse on the Religion Anciently Pro- fessed by the Irish, chap, viii, p. 75. archbishop, the pall, from Rome. St. Ber- nard, in his life of Malachy, the primate of that time, asserts (c. 11) of the metropolitan see of Armagh, that " usque adhuc pallio caruisse."* To procure this, that primate made a journey to Rome ; and in consequence thereof, cardinal Papyro was sent over to Ireland with a pall, to each of the four archbishops of that country. "f My extract from Dr. Mason, in ' Presbyterian- ism Defended,' tended to show that, under the influence of the Roman legate, there was, at that time, a manifest departure from the former system of the church, and that a step was then taken towards the establishment of prelacy. "Village bishoprics were converted into rural deaneries. "J Before this period, the primitive system of parochial episcopacy seems to have prevailed. And how have you managed to get rid of this troublesome histori- cal testimony ? Professing to quote my words, you exactly reverse them, and put into my mouth a sentiment the very opposite of that which I expressed. You observe, — " It is no doubt incontrovertibly true, that " rural dean- eries were converted into village bishoprics." § I am willing to hope that this was an uninten- tional error, and take it only as an additional evidence of your blundering propensities. It appears from various historical records, that the Irish church retained its primitive simplicity to a comparatively late period. The reader will find the rise and progress of pre- lacy more fully discussed in the fourth section of the previous letter, in which it is shown that rural bishoprics were generally suppressed throughout the Roman empire in the fourth century. In Ireland the case was different. Even Ledwich, a stickler for prelacy, is forced to admit that " the number of bishops in the early Irish church was prodigious, according to the extent of the isle."[[ This learned an- tiquary, in his observations on a curious and authentic record, preserved in Wilkins' coun- cils, giving an account of the change which took place in the constitution of the Irish church, by which village bishoprics were con- verted into rural deaneries in the time of Pa- paro, has the following : " Here we have a full and clear developement of the state of our ancient hierarchy, and a confirma- tion of what has been delivered. Ireland was full of chorepiscopi, village, or rural bishops." He then enumerates a great many that ex- isted in Meath and Dublin, and proceeds, — " These were all rural deaneries, and of course rural sees; before the year 1152, however, the transmutation of one into the other, proceeded slowly, for by bishop Rochfort's constitutions before, we find it was far from being completed in the thirteenth century. If the number of rural deaneries at their first creation could be * See also Giraldus Cambrensis'sTopoi;. dist. iii, 17 ; Pembrids;e's Annals, &c, &c. + Religion of the Ancient Irish Saints before A.D. 600, by Dr. Mason, p. 34 t Presbyterianism Defended, p. 129. I Letters, p. 90. II Antiquities of Ireland, by E. Ledwich, L.L.D. &c, 4to, page 39a ALLEGED ADMISSIONS OP PRESBYTERIANS. 129 discovered from records in the Vatican or elsewhere, it would give lis the number of our raral sees. The rural deaneries in the com- mon diocesan registers are not correct, or I might easily have adduced them. Our bishops, I suppose, might have amounted to above three hundred."* Tho admissions of Ledwich in this passage are very important ; hut it must at the same time be observed, that his applica- tion of the term "chorepiscopi" to Irish village bishops, is quite unwarranted, inasmuch as it appears, that at the time of St. Patrick, all the Irish bishops, whether of town or country, were distinguished by the same names and classed in the same rank. Tho distinction between episeopi and chorepiscopi was certainly quite unknown in any part of Christendom until the beginning of the fourth century, and it is ad- mitted, even by Ledwich himself, that bishops before that period were located in the smallest parishes. Thus he says, " Salmasius has evinced tho apostolic practice to be, to place bishops in every rural churoh, and in cities more than one."f Towards the close of your letter, I have met with a sentence which astonished me not a little. " I believe," you say, " I believe I have now noticed all the principal points in your discourse.]; Of all the extraordinary passa- ges I have encountered, in reading your pro- duction, this is the most extraordinary. In the coarse of my review, I have pointed out many omissions of leading and important pi lints, and I therefore think It unnecessary to recapitulate them here. Since you have declared your belief that you have " noticed all the principal points in my discourse," I am bound to give credit to the sincerity of your expressions. At the same time, I must ex- press my conviction that you arc labouring under a great delusion, which I hopo the pe- rusal of this letter may tend in some measure to dispel. You remind me of an idle school boy, prematurely promoted to the reading of Virgil, who got through the ./Encid by skipping all the hard places, and imagined that he had successfully finished his task. I doubt not but that with perfect sincerity he might have said, " I have now noticed all the principal points in the discourse." SECT. XII. — ALLEGED ADMISSIONS OF PRES- ItYTEltlAXS. The passage which you have headed, " Ad- missionsof Presbyterians" is thoroughly feeble, I had almost said totally unworthy of notice. With regard to Calvin I will say nothing. By a quotation from his writings, professing to he u unsuppiessed, unmutilatod," you have at- tempted to impose upon my brother bishop of Raphoe. After liis exposure in this case, I can afford to exercise forbearance, and will not therefore lacerate tin- wounds already bleeding from the lash of his pen. The passages purporting to be from Bucer and t'hamier eannol he discovered in their Works. [ do not positively assert that they are not some where, but certainly your refe » Ledwich, pp. 391, 393. + Lcdwich, p. 395. t Letters p. 105. rences are most inaccurate, or you have em- ployed some other editions than are generally to be found in public libraries. A long and minute search has been instituted, and yet none of the passages can be traced. At best, they are of a very ambiguous character, and though I should admit your version of them to be correct, they would have no effect upon the question at issue. My veneration for great names is very little ; but I acknowledge it would have surprised me much, if I had found Bucer and Chamier opposed to me. I am happy, however, to assure you, that this is far from being the case. Their writings so teem with testimonies in favour of the cause I advocate, that I have dilliculty in selecting among them. The following is the testimony of Bucer: " The Holy Spirit has appointed, as the apos- tle testifies, those presbyters to bo bishops to feed the church of God. They ought, doubt- less, to bo inspectors and pastors of the (lock, under Christ the chief Shepherd. And so it was afterwards decreed by the appointment of tho Holy Spirit, that the care of souls and the pastoral office ought to be imposed upon the presbyters of the church in common. And from hence St. Jerome justly infers, that the office and duties nf presbyters and bishops arc one and the same."* It strikes me that you might have quoted from ' Presbyterianism De- fended' with equal propriety and advantage. Chamier is, if possible, a still more unfor- tunate reference. You are probably not aware that he treats largely on the very point we are discussing, and that he has spent much time and labour in proving that there is no divine authority for a bishop being superior to a pres- byter. IIo takes up in detail the arguments fi u- prelacy, and triumphantly overthrows them. He demonstrates that tho system is utterly devoid of all Scripture authority, and that the usual quotations from the fathers are not rightly cited in defence of the superiority of bishops. A perusal of his admirable defence of presbyterianism might prove to you exceed- ingly beneflcial.f You might as well ransack * Martini Buccri Scripta Anglicana Fere Omnia. Basil. 1577. pnjre 280. + Danirlis Chamier! Delphinatis pastratire Catho- lics, vol. il. The question, " Whether a bishop is jure divinn, aliove a presbyter," is amply discussed in chap, vi, ol bonk x, ami the negative of the proposition estab- lished. The whole ciment of his reasoning is to show the unacriptora] nature of prelacy. I quote one passage out of a multitude that present themselves. "In the primitive arrangements of the chinch, there were no such bishops as those that were afterwards appointed, that is to say, there were none who by rigbl had pre- eminence among the clergy, from which it is gathered that this system was nut instituted by Christ or bis apostles, and (inasmuch as in the eharun what is Hist is best) it would be more prudent for the church, thai all the presbyter* were esteemed equal both in right and degree (pari ci jure et gradu.) It appears, secondly, that when this order or degree of bishops, as distinct from presbyters, was constituted, the bishops were not like monarchs, who had power over the olergy, bul presi- dents appointed tn preside in the affairs to be di liberate i and transacted, an arrangement necessarj In every uris- tocracy." Lib. 10, chap- 5. sec. fi. And again, he sums up an argument by this declaration — '• In line, I am hold to assert, that presbyters wi re in ver distinguished from bishop", or even separated from thi tn by Ircmeus." Cap. 6, sec. 16, K 130 ALLEGED EFFICIENCY OF the works of my friend Mr. Killen for testimo- nies in favour of prelacy, as look to Chamier for any assistance in your difficulties. What you call the statement of Molineus or Du Moulin, like your previous testimonies, is no where to be found. I perceive that you have made free with this author already, in ' Sermons on the Church,'* anu " ^ I might ven- ture to guess the authority for your quotation, I would say that it was culled from Bingham, though it does not exactly agree either with Bingham or the work itself.f The fact is, that the passage which you profess to quote, is not contained in the first two editions of Du Mou- lin's French work, hut was, in all probability, foisted in by the anonymous translator, to make the book more palatable in England. The sentiments you have attributed to Du Moulin, are totally opposed to his well-known opinions. SECT. XIII. ALLEGED EFFICIENCY OF THE IRISH CHURCH DISCORDANCE AMONG ENG- LISH DIVINES — DR. PUSEY AND MR. BOYD's ENGLISH WORTHIES. It must have been a thoughtless and un- guarded moment when you penned the sen- tence — " An effort has been made, that is, a statement has been advanced, in the second discourse of ' Presbyterianism Defended,' to show that the pretended establishments, &c. in the Church of England have not answered the design of their institution." J Now, sir, I am not aware of any such statement having been made. In the second discourse of ' Presbyterianism Defended,' the question of the efficiency of the churches of England or Ireland never was mentioned, nor did I ever make use of the phrase "pretended establishments." I know full well that there is no pretence about the matter. Prelacy is established, not indeed by the authority of Scripture, or by the desire of the people, but by the strong arm of the law. It appears, however, that you challenge reve- rence for your system on account of its effi- ciency. Look then to the fact. It is the duty of the church, by law established, to impart religious instruction to all the people in the kingdom. This duty is expressly acknowledged by the Irish church. § To what extent then does prelacy, as established in Ireland, effect this object? It cannot complain of limited resources. For ages, every thing was subject to its control. All that human power can do has been done for its advancement. Acts of Parliament were multiplied in its support. The entrance to all public and official situa- tions was open to those alone who acknow- ledged its authority. Its clergy were the only channels of the public funds for religious pur- poses. All grants for education, from the princely endowments of the university to the gratuity for the humblest schoolmaster, were under their control. And the object all along * Page 189. + Buckler of the Faith. t Letters, page 337. 5 See 40th cauon, as quoted in ' Presbyterianism De- fended,' page 11)6. kept in view, I am bound to say r , has been, not so much to make Christians, as to swell the numbers of a party, and to bring the po- pulation within the pale of prelacy. To effect this object, every thing has been tried, from the bribery of the pauper, to the penalties of the statute-book. And what is the result? Protestant prelacy has but a small minority of the people. In four dioceses, including one hundred and twenty-two parishes, with a population of 324,748 souls, I find only 6,898 men, women, and children, belonging to the Church of England, and of this small number, who are reported as episcopalians, many, I doubt not, are tenants of police barracks, and others are probably presby r terians, unable to support a stated minister.* * Extract from the first Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction in Ireland. Reported as belonging to Diocese. Parishes. Population. the Establish, cd Church. Clonfert, 38 123,848 4,761 Kilmacduagh, 21 46,132 656 Emly, 44 98,363 1,246 Kilfenora, 19 56,405 235 122 324,718 6,898 Although these returns reic-r to the south of Ireland, there are many parishes similarly situated mother parts of the kingdom. In numbers of them there is not a single individual belonging to the Irish establishment. Even in " protestant Ulster," the adherents of prelacy are less in number than either presbyterians or Roman Catholics. The revenues of the clergy of the diocese of Clonfert, amount to .£4,134 5s 2d per annum, and those of the clergy of the diocese of Kilmacduagh to £2,080 10s 7d, as appears from the third Report of the Com- missioners of Ecclesiastical Revenue and Patronage in Ireland, May, 1836. From want of access to other Par- liamentary documents, I am not enabled to state the amount of revenue enjoyed by the clergy of Emly aud Kilfenora, or the incomes of the bishops presiding over these and other sees, but, reasoning by analogy, I con- clude that their services are not bestowed gratuitously, and that they are abundantly remunerated for all the labour they are accustomed to undergo. I know it will cheer the catholic and liberal heort of Mr. Boyd, to turn from the dreary wildernesses of pre- lacy to the fertile plains of presbytery, and to hear of the multitudes that flock to presbyterian churches on each returning Sabbath. In many a parish, one pres- byterian minister has more under his pastoral care than all the dignitaries and inferior clergy of three or four dioceses put together. The following returns are extracted from the first Report of the Commissioners of Public Instruction in Ireland, 1834:— Parish. Presbyterians. Ardstraw, 9,058 Newtonards, 9,013 Bangor, 8,182 Comber (Co. Down) 7,724 Ballyclug, 7,697 Carnmoney, 7,515 Macosquin, 5,570 Aghadowey 6,161 Tullyaughnish, 5,225 Donaghadee, 7,057 Ballymoney, 9,444 The efficiency of the Church of Ireland may be estima- ted from the fact, that when the last Government cen- sus was made in 1834, there were 264 benefices, in not one of which fifty protestant episcopalians could be mustered. Of these there were 140, in which 20 could not be found j and in upwards of 40 benefices, there is not one member of the Established Church, even the Rec- tors themselves being non-residents. A benefice fre- quently includes a number of parishes ; and it appears from a Parliamentary paper dated 17th July, 1835, moved for by Lord Morpeth, and entitled "Parochial Benefices," that there were then 876 parishts, in each of THE IRISH TRELATICAL CHURCH. 131 On the topic of the efficiency of your church, atopic, let it be remembered, introduced by yourself, I will quote a few words from ' Let- ters on Subjects connected with Ireland,' lately published by the very Rev. Edward N. lloaie, the present dean of Aohonry. These letters are addressed to a brother minister In England, Dean Hoare thus speaks, — " In one of the conversations which we had together on rrish affairs, you expressed your astonishment that the principles of the Reformation had not made greater progress in Ireland, under the influence of the established church. Alas ! my dear sir, the subject for just astonishment is, that pro- testantism should be found to exist in this country at all. Some of the speakers at Pro- testant Association meetings will tell you, that it is wonderful our religion could have stood the shocks of the opposition of the Roman Catholics. But this is not the true point of view in which to consider the matter. The wonder is, that our church has continued, not- withstanding the former pluralities and other barefaced abuses of the church establishment, the non-residence and worse than apathy of the clergy, and the supineness and nepotism of the hierarchy. You will say I speak strongly ; but, my dear sir, if I were to recite one half of the facts which I have had opportunity of as- certaining as having occurred in times not long gone by, you would not say that I had expres- sed more than the circumstances of the case demanded, were I to use language much more strong than I should bo inclined to adopt."* The amiable and pious author then proceeds to give some most extraordinary instances of the total inefficiency of the system ; but I con- tent myself with this one quotation, to prove how baseless is the conclusion you would draw, that the church, as by law established in this country, " has answered the design of its institution." Your note B, in the appendix, presents a tempting subject for criticism, which I cannot resist. It seems that the hierarchy and cathe- dral establishments are valuable, as affording leisure and income to men of learning, who may advance the cause of literature. Now, the number of such who contribute to the ad- vancement of science, in any shape, is com- paratively small. For one that employs his talents, there are ten standing all their days which there .ire less than 00 members of the Established Church, and 160 in which there is not a single prelatic protestant, and this in a kingdom proverbial for its ti in, Ing population. From another Parliamentary pa- per, dated -Jllli March, IS:!"), in which an abstract is given of the Diocesan returns for the year 1 833, it ap- pears that there were then 460 non-residents among the clergy: — Total Benefices In the kingdom, 1,310 Incumbents resident. 84/5 Xon-resident, 4tio No returns, sequestrations, &c, 35 — 1,310 At that time more than one third of the incumbents of parishes In Ireland were non-residents. \\ bether mat- ters have improve. I since tint period I cannot tell, but these facts lend hc.-iutilully to illustrate the sentiment that prrlacy.as established in Ireland, has "answered the design ol Its institution.'' * Page 31. idle. At the same time, I do not deny the propriety of affording leisure and income to men of learning, and tints allowing them to de- vote their energies to the pursuits of literature and science. But then, this might be done without adding new officers to the church of Christ. Were large incomes and undisturbed leisure provided for presbytcrian ministers, such as Chalmers, Dewar, Welsh, Duncan, and others, I doubt not but that the public would be more than remunerated by tlieir works. Or were such national favours totally unconnected with the pastoral office — were they bestowed on the elite of other professions, of medicine, or of law, the cause of truth and science would be greatly subserved. Put up some hundreds o( rich sinecures for literary men, and out of them you will certainly find two or three in a generation who will turn these sinecures to their intended use — the undisturbed cultiva- tion of the pursuits of literature. But the dis- covery of learned men among the dignitaries of the Church of England, is no more a proof of the divine authority of her system, than learned Roman Catholic writers or learned heathens arc evidences for popery or pagan- ism. I formerly acknowledged, and acknow- ledged with gratitude, the service that divines of the Church of England have done to the cause of our common Christianity * But their labours, great and important as they are ad- mitted to be, give no countenance to any dab- bler in divinity, who may happen to belong to the same communion, to despise the works of presbyterian authors. It is justly said by one in the northern part of our sister kingdom — " Scotland, we maintain, notwithstanding the sneers of our southern neighbours, has been famous at all times for her divines. She can- not boast, indeed, of such writers as Tillotson, Barrow, and others of that school; but we deny, and the time, we think, is fast approaching, when the denial will become all but universal, that these writers are entitled to rank high among Christian divines. As moralists and dialectitians, they may continue to hold a high place in the literature of the country ;but where is the theologian, or pious minister of Christ, who, in treating the peculiar doctrines of Chris- tianity, ever dreams of appealing to them as authorities, or applying to them for assistance!' The truth is, that for nearly two centuries the- ology has not been studied as a science in England; and with the exception of Tillotson, Wilkins, and Reynolds, who were trained an der presbytery, and the latter of whom was a preshyterian in heart, though ahishop in name, the catalogue of episcopalian writers hardly presents the name of a systematic divine. Our Scottish ministers, on the contrary, were in these days almost without exception thorough. bred theologians — they were profoundly versed in the systems ol'dix inity published on the Con- tinent, where tin' science was taughl in all its branches, by men of the first rank in learning and philosophy — and they would have field it fold si. ini to assume the ministerial office, * Presbyterianism Defended, page lOfi. 132 DR. PUSEY AND MR. BOYD'S without making themselves acquainted with the various departments, controversial, criti- cal, and practical, in the wide field of theology. " It is true, that in their popular discourses they made no vain parade of their learning ; and adapting themselves to those whom it was their province to instruct, they used a homely and unadorned style, as well as a peculiar me- thod of arranging their thoughts, which, when compared with the elegant essays of the Eng- lish school, or the more polished compositions of modern times, may expose them to the con- tempt of our literary judges. But as divines, it would he ridiculous to question their supe- riority; and as preachers, there are some of them, at least, who will bear comparison with the ablest of their times." You invite me " to step into that treasury, a library of English divinity."* The moment 1 read your invitation, scenes of turbulence and controversy rose before me. At first I thought myself introduced to the builders of the tower of Babel — all was disorder and confusion. Again, in imagination, I was brought into the theatre, and stunned with the din and uproar of the craftsmen of Ephesus. " Some cried one thing, and some another, for the assembly was confused."f Such were fit types of the divines of England. Availing myself of your invitation, I step into a library of English divi- nity, and find the greatest contrariety of opi- nions on the most vital and important topics. Take the point we are discussing. Potter and Hall declare prelacy to be of divine appoint- ment. Bishop Stillingfleet flatly contradicts them. Hammond insists, that originally there were no presbyters, and that all the bishops mentioned in Scripture were bonajide dioce- sans. Dodwell teaches that all were presby- ters at first, except a bishop or pope at Jeru- salem, and that episcopacy (prelacy) was not introduced until the second century. " You are all wrong," says bishop Burnet, " there were at first both bishops and presbyters, and by presbyters deacons were meant." " Si- lence," cries the author of the ' Sermons on the Church,' " there were three distinct and unmixing orders, bishops, and rjriests, and deacons.''^ In one corner of the assembly we have a party teaching predestination, and an- other denouncing it. Here original sin is ad- vocated, there it is denied. Here a multitude is proclaiming baptismal regeneration, and prayers for the dead, to be part and parcel of the established doctrine, and there is a knot vehemently calling it a libel and a calumny upon the Church of England to say that it holds any such views. Here we have huddled together Calvinists and Arminians, Arians and Socinians, half-papists and nondescripts in- numerable. The man who loves variety has, to use your own words, " but to step into that treasury, a library of English divinity," to have his taste most amply gratified. In the previous part of your letter, you exhi- bited a deplorable want of acquaintance with * Letters, p. 108. + Acts xix, 32. } Sermons oil the Church, p. TO. many of the most eminent reformers and divines of your own church, their views being far diffe- rent from what you had supposed. You now mention the names of those whom you would enshrine as luminaries of the Church of Eng- land — the great ones of her cathedrals in an- cient and modem times. You must have been very slightly acquainted with the characters and conduct of many in the list, or their names would never have appeared. Silence had been much more discreet than this injudicious at- tempt at exhibition It is perhaps some apo- logy, that your information is from a " second- hand source." Dr. Pusey has been your guide, and he has led you astray. I hope this will be a warning to you in future to be careful not to follow his steps, or he may lead you into errors of a more dangerous character. Let me assure you that protestants look with great suspicion upon your keeping such company. Chillingworth is an author whom Dr. Pusey and you have agreed to canonise. He was born and educated at Oxford. Afterwards he turned Roman Catholic, and again a prelatic protestant. He was generally believed to have been a Socinian ; but in his last letter, at tho end of his works, he appears an Arian. It is certain that he refused to subscribe the thirty- nine articles for some years after his conversion. Bishop Berkley is placed at the head of English theologians in the ' Sermons on the Church j '* and his name is again recorded in the appendix to your letters. It is true that Berkley, after his elevation to the bishopric of Cloyne, mado a good deal of noise in the lite- rary world by the controversy in which he was engaged with the mathematicians of Great Britain and Ireland. I believe him to have been an amiable man, but undoubtedly his writings have been most injurious to the cause of truth, and have often led to infidelity. Mr. Hume, having applied the bishop's rea- soning to his own purposes, thus expresses himself: — " This argument is drawn from Dr. Berkeley, and indeed, most of the writings of that very ingenious author form the best les- sons of scepticism which are to be found among the ancient or modern philosophers, Bayle not excepted." f Dr. Beattie, speaking of the line of reasoning pursued by Berkeley, observes, " If this argument be conclusive, it proves that to he false which every man must necessarily believe every moment of his life to be true, and that to be true which no man from the foundation of the world was ever capable of believing for a single moment. Berkeley's doctrine attacks the mostincontestible dictates of common sense, and pretends to demonstrate that the clearest principles of human convic- tion, and those which have determined the judgment of men in all ages, and by which the judgment of all reasonable men must be determined, are certainly fallacious.''^ Is this " the clear exhibition, the deep confirmation * Page 147. + Hume's Essays, vol. ii, p. 484. * Beattie's Essay on Truth, 4to, p. 157. ENGLISH WORTHIES. 133 of the truth" of which you speak?* Is it hy such men that the interests of religion have been served ? The work, however, which bishop Berkeley has been heard to declare, cost him more time and pains than any other, was entitled, ' En- quiries concerning -the virtue* of tar water;' and the last production of his pen was, ' Far- ther thoughts on tar water.' This I take to be one of the " depthl where," as you tell me, " not mam/ could hare strain." f I freely ad- mit the correctness of your observation, but of these treatises, (" and in their place I ques- tion neither the value nor necessity for such,") I have yet to learn in what department of theology they are to be placed. Bramhall, once bishop of Derry, has had the honour of appearing in your pages. He lived in the time of Wentworth, the lord deputy, who was the inveterate enemy of presbyterians. Any one upon whom suspicion had fallen, of being tainted with their direful heresy, was the object of unrelenting persecution. Neither rank nor sex escaped his severity. Most of the northern bishops supported the deputy in their proceedings. But the zeal and activity of Bramhall were so remarkable, that Went- worth wrote to him in these terms of commen- dation : " Your lordship's course takon and in- tended against the two packs of rogues and petty rebels there (Deny) I do both well ap- prove of, and desire your lordship it may be pursued. " And then he proceeds to give di- rections to his willing instrument for the pro- secution, and transmission to Dublin, of a clergyman whom the bishop had committed for the heinous crime of praying for the pros- perity of religion in Scotland. There may be prelatists who long for the days of Bramhall again, who desire to have presbyterians hun- ted like partridges on the mountains, and to see the city of our habitation once moro the theatre of bitter persecution j but I trust there ore few to sympathise in their feelings. Bentley and Hare are named by you, among others, to justify the observation that " all who can respect learning and estimate its value in defence and illustration of Christianity, will honour the sagacity of a church which made such arrangements for its encouragr»ment." J Perhaps you do not know that the literary la- bours of Bentley were principally directed to tin; revision and publication of profaneauthors. A warm controversy was curried on between him and bishop Hare about the Plays of Te- rence, a moat abominable and obscene writer — a disgrace even to paganism itself. It is justly observed by Whiston, in his Historical Memoirs of Dr. Clarke, " Laymen who had no ecclesi ast i c al endowments — such as Grotias, Newton, and Locke— hare employed their ta- lents in sacred studies, while such clergymen as Dr. Bentley and bishop Hare, to name no others at present, hn\e been, in the words of Sir Isaac Newton, "fighting about a Play- * Sermons on the Church, p. 140. + letters, p. |09. t Letters p. 53a book." This is a reproach upon their holy religion and holy function plainly intolerable." Yet these are the men on whose account we are expected to honour a church that has had " the sagacity to make arrangements for their encouragement " The name of Parker is twice mentioned. I presume that by one of them Dr. Pusey inten- ded archbishop Parker. He was a strong high-churchman, and most servile to the in- junctions of the queen in all matters connec- ted with the regulation of the church. His special characteristics were an inordinate love lor popish habits, and a bitter enmity to the Puritans, whom he persecuted to the utmost extent of his power, and beyond the limits of the law. Perhaps these are the qualities that recommend him to your affection and esteem. Archbishop Laud has had a conspicuous place assigned him in your Appendix, among the Worthies of the Church of England. Pres- byterian as I am, I should be sorry to esti- mate the prelacy of England so low as to sup- pose it could derive any lustre from the cha- racter and conduct of Laud. In early life he was under the care of one Buckridge, who was employed by king James to argue with the presbyterians. It was acknowledged that this person " gained nothing on the Scots ; " * but, though he lost in the opinion of all sensible people, he was consoled with great praise from the bigotted party in the church, and at last with preferment for himself. These objects are always alluring. How often, even at tho present day, is truth sacrificed to their attain- ment! Under the tutelage of Buckridge, Laud eagerly imbibed high-church principles. His life is chielly distinguished by the zeal with which he enforced the observance of rites and ceremonies, nearly approaching to those of popery. The ridiculous and upmeaning mummeries which he practised at the consecration of churches, were enough to make even a popish cardinal blush. When consecrating the church of St. Catherine Cree in London, the bishop went through the following evolutions among* others. He approached the west door of the church with a numerous retinue of attendants, civil and military. By previous arrangement, a loud cry was raised : " Open, open, ye ever- lasting doors, that the King <;/' glory mag come in. " As soon as he entered, his lordship dropped upon his knees and pronounced the place " holy in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Then walking up (he mid- dle aisle, towards the chancel, he took up some of the dust and threw it into the air several times. When he approached the rail of the communion table he bowed towards it live or six times, and then returning went round the church, with a great procession, reading tin' PsalmS and Collects, us appointed by the l!o man pontifical Then, Bitting under a cloth of slate, he pronounced twenty curses upon those who should hereafter profane that holy place by carrying burdens through It, 8tC He * Hejliu. 134 ENGLISH WORTHIES. then pronounced a like number of blessings upon those who should afterwards give chalices, plate, ornaments, or other utensils. And at the end of every curse and blessing be bowed to the east, and said, " Let all the people say Amen." After this came the sermon, and then the sacrament, which the bishop administered. As he approached the altar he made five or six low bows, and, on coming to the side of it, he bowed seven times. He then came near the bread, and, after gently lifting the corner of the napkin, immediately let it fall and retreat- ed hastily a step or two, and made three low obeisances. His lordship then advanced, and, having uncovered the bread, bowed three times as before. The same ceremonies of stepping back, bowing, lifting the cover, &c, were ob- served in regard to the wine. The bishop, having first received the sacrament, gave it to some of the principal men, who were duly dressed in their surplices, hoods, and tippets. After some prayers the consecration ended. Had Laud only practised these superstitious fooleries himself, we might have been inclined to smile at him and his performances; but, not content with this, he insisted upon a confor- mity to all the rites and ceremonies which he thought becoming. For those who resisted the yoke, or who expressed any doubt as to the propriety of his conduct, no punishment was thought too severe. Laud has been justly desig- nated " one of the most ferocious bigots and cold-blooded persecutors that ever disgraced the name of man. " Take an instance of his savage cruelty. Dr. Leighton, father of the archbishop of that name, was a man of devoted piety, and universally esteemed ; but he had written a book against prelacy, and this excited the vengeful spirit of Laud. For this heinous crime Leighton was sentenced to pay a fine of £10,000, to be imprisoned during life, to be publicly scourged, placed in the pillory, have one of his ears cut off, one side of his nose slit up, and be branded on the one cheek with red- hot irons with the letters S. S. ; a fortnight af- terwards to be again whipped, placed in the pillory, have the other ear cut off, the other nostril slit up, and the other cheek branded with the letters S. S. When Laud procured the passing of this sentence, he was so rejoiced, that he pulled off his cap, and publicly re- turned thanks to Almighty God for his success. Mr. Prynne, a barrister, had published a re- monstrance against ' the Book of Sports,' that was, against the encouragement given by the church and legislature to the desecration of the Sabbath in games and dances. For this offence he was condemned to a similar punish- ment. Both sentences were executed to the very letter, except that, by the death of Laud and the King, the prisoners were liberated and their fines remitted. Had Leighton and Prynne been abandoned characters, had they even violated the laws of their country, our sympathy might have been excited by the de- gradation and suffering they endured. But when we remember that they were Christian men, that their only offences were, contending for the truth, and attempting to guard the Sabbath from profanation, words are insuffi- cient to express our indignation. I had concluded that the Church of England had been long ago ashamed of the name of Laud, and wished to bury in oblivion his su- perstitions and his crimes. What then is to be thought of Dr. Pusey and you, (par nobile fratrum), who demand us to respect your church, because she can number among her prelates this bigoted and barbarous monster? Heathens are accustomed to select for their tutelary gods, and Roman Catholics for their patron saints, such as resemble themselves, and whose conduct they wish to imitate. What, then, are we to think of the spirit, and had they the power to bring it into action, what should we think of the conduct of those men who make Laud their saint and model ?* I had wished to have examined the charac- ters of Warburton and others, whom you have mentioned, and to have investigated their claims to the admiration of after times ; but I will only notice one other name, that of Foxe. You announce him as having been connected with the Irish church. If you had yourself examined his history, instead of following the leadings of Dr. Pusey, you would have found that he spent the greater part of Iris life upon the continent, an exile for his religion, and that he never held any ecclesiastical situation hi Ireland. Foxe was, indeed, a most pious, learned, and judicious divine. He possessed a truly catholic spirit, and was opposed to all harshness in matters of religion. The work to which you have referred,f is the fruit of much labour and great research. So valuable was it esteemed, that a copy was ordered to be placed in every parish church in England. Yet, sir, this man, who rendered such essen- tial service to the cause of protestantism, — this man, of whom you now boast, was treated with neglect and cruelty by the Church of England. He was, in fact, a nonconformist ; for he had scruples regarding the peculiar ha- bits enjoined on the clergy, and he refused to subscribe the canons, or to approve of the ce- remonies of the church. For these reasons he was neglected, he was permitted to sink into poverty and want, and actually became an object for the charity of the benevolent. At length, after being almost starved to death, he obtained a small preferment, which he con- tinued to hold during the remainder of his life, though often threatened and disturbed by the high churchmen of his day. When presbyterian ministers were first set- tled in Ireland, they occupied the churches and possessed the tithes of their respective parishes. Though prelacy was established by law, they continued to observe the presby- terian worship and discipline, notwithstanding the bitter persecutions to which they were ex- posed. Many of these ministers were men of high talents and ardent piety ,but they werepres- * Some excellent observations on the character of Lauil.and on the spirit of prelacy as at present manifested in Oxford and elsewhere, are to be found in the fcdin- burgh Christian Instructor— a truly excellent periodical. + Acts and Monuments. PRELACY UNCHARITABLE AND PERSECUTING. 135 bylerians still. It surely would be unfair to make out a catalogue of tlieir names, and place them to the credit of the Church of England. And it is equally unjust to bring forward the name of the venerated Foxe, who was persecuted by your church, and who ap- proved not of its canons and its ceremonies. So much for your defence of cathedral establishments, so much for archbishops and prelates, deans and chapters, prebends and canons, 8tC. Scripture for them there is none. The voice of early antiquity is silent regard- ing them, and the only apology for the enor- mous expenditure lavished on their support, is, that some men of learning have held ca- thedral appointments. In order to show the value of these establishments, you produce a variety of extraordinary instances. You point to a Proteus, once a Romanist, now a Church of England man, then a Socinian, and last of all, an Arian. You insist that " a barrier against heresy"* has been erected by another whose writings have tended not only to sweep away the whole gospel of truth, but to sap the foundations of natural religion itself, and to spread scepticism and infidelity far and wide. You deem a prelate worthy of renown, who was a cruel persecutor of presbyterians, and whom we are expected especially to esteem, because our own city was the scene of his pious labours. You boast of " the nourishment given to the church,"f by men who were dis- tinguished for contending, not for the faith once delivered to the saints, but for tho ho- nour of best unfolding the abominations of heathenism. You demand respect and vene- ration for two archprelateS, by whom popish ceremonies were dearly beloved, and who de- lighted in the persecution of the righteous. And to crown the whole, you place to the credit of the Irish church a godly man who never belonged to it, and who was cruelly treated by the Church of England, because Ids conscience revolted at her system and her ceremonies. Surely, sir, you were not aware of the lives and characters of these persons, or their names would never have appeared uiMin your pages. See the misfortune of se- cond-hand information. SECT. XIV. — THE SPIIUT OF PRELACY UNCHARI- TABLE AND PERSECUTING. The uncharitable language used by prela- tists, regarding presbyterians and other religi- ous denominations, was frequently referred to and quoted in ' Prcsbyterianism Defended.' Tin recital of some of the awful denunciations, pronounced by members of the Church of England againsl nil who diner from them, made B deep impression upon the public mind. That such language as the following could have been Used regarding other protestants was deemed almost incredible : "Christ and his holy apostles instituted but one form of church government and communion, and confined the * Sermons on the Church, p. 140. + Ibid. p. 1 Hi- covenanted means of salvation to the living members of this one communion, and to none other." * " We must recollect," says the same writer, "that those pretended ministers who officiate in the meetings of presbyterians, me- thod) sts, Sec, have not been ordained by bi- shops. And, consequently, as I have already demonstrated, these men have not been sent by God; and, therefore, it must be utterly un- lawful to attend their ministry. For, ' how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent? ' The Lord for- bids us to hear them, because ' he hath not sent them, and therefore they shall not profit this people.' To hear, then, in such a case, is rebellion against Gmt, and utterly unlawful, and is countenancing them, and hardening their PRESUMPTION AND DARING IMPOSTURE." f In addition to this, the canons of the church of Ireland excommunicate not only all who do not belong to her communion, but all who will dare to say that there is any other true and law- ful church in the kingdom. J You have evidently been ransacking the works of presbytcrian authors for some senti- ment or expression that you might represent and trumpet forth as uncharitable towards the Church of England. You have anxiously sought even for sentences or words that might form something like a counterpart to the lan- guage of prelatists towards presbyterians, but you have sought in vain. You then betake yourself to the dissenters of England, and quote what they have said about the abuses of prelacy. How ridiculous such conduct ! You might, with as much propriety, lay to our charge the bulls of his holiness, the Pope, or the sayings of the monks of Spain. It is not for me to defend or justify the opinions or ex- pressions of English dissenters, but I cannot help remarking that the language, which you say they have employed, is the language of love and endearment, compared with the awful denunciations poured forth by the abbettors of prelacy. The one has respect to the system — the other to the men. The one has reference only to time — the other to eternity. The one * Treatise on the Church, by Edward Barwick, of Trinity College, Dublin, t'relace, xv. + Page 146. J See the fifth canon of the Irish Church, as quoted in ' Presbyterianism Defended,* p. 131. Let it not be supposed, that these canons are now thrown aside and neglected. On the contrary, great efforts are made for their circulation. They are usually hound up with the homilies, and sold at a cheap rate by the' Association for Discountenancing Vice,' than which there is not a more sectarian club beyond the walls of the propa. gam! a. While the first edition was passing through the press, the bishop of Exeter, who, like Mr. Boyd, discovers a tender interest for the welfare ot prelacy, publicly de- nied thut presbyterians are a church. In a debate in the House of Lords, on the subject ol the clercy reserves in Canada, which look place on the 7th April, 1840, he insisted thai by " pmteslant clergy" in the Act of Par- liament, could only hr meant the clergy of the church of England, and from hence he interred that all the pub- lic fundi for the support of religion ought to be appro- priated exclusively to them. As to the presbyterian establishment of Scotland, he declared that" he would not call them a churrh," and that " it was wrong to use the expression— the clergy of the Chunk of Scotland.'' 136 PRELACY UNCHARITABLE AND PERSECUTING. is the announcement of disapprobation— the other is condemnation to eternal misery and death. You had before you, in ' Presbyterian- ism Defended,' the passages which I have quoted above, with many others of a similar spirit. And have you repudiated the senti- ments which they contain? Have you ex- pressed disapprobation at the horrible expres- sions of your brethren ? No. You have en- dorsed them by your silence — you have added to the awful catalogue another sentence of condemnation — you have pronounced, in an- other form, the everlasting doom of all who bow not at the shrine of prelacy — you have declared " the Church of Scotland, at this moment, stands an alien in constitution from the Church of Christ." * I cannot believe that such language will give general satisfaction. It may please a few, and I trust a very few, but I am well convinced that it is regarded, almost universally, with sorrow and disgust. A few words, and I have done. You hare attacked my arguments for presbytery, but the attempt to overthrow them has been vain ; the principle for which I contend has been estab- lished more firmly than ever — the pastors of the church are of one order and of equal au- thority. I have carefully examined your pleas for diocesan episcopacy, and proved that they have no foundation in Scripture, or in the ear- liest ages of antiquity, and I have traced the rise of prelacy to the pride and dissensions of men. You are now to be released, as far as I am concerned, from the painful task of pe- rusing tho record of your own sophistries and errors. Before taking leave, I must notice your con- cluding paragraph, which, I lament to say, makes no atonement for your previous con- duct. You have talked of the sufferings of presbyterians in the cause of truth, as imagi- nary. O, sir, you know not the feelings of in- dignation that your words excite in many a heart. The sufferings of presbyterians all fancy and imagination ! No, sir, they were stern realities. The deeds of atrocity and blood perpetrated by the Church of England, will stain her name until history be silent. Look to Scotland. No less than twenty-two thousand Scottish presbyterians were, in thirty years, sacrificed to the demon of prelacy. Look to Ireland. Since first presbytery was planted in our island, it has been the ob- ject of unrelenting persecution. Often has our church been dripping with blood, but that blood has been her own. Often she has been the sufferer, but never the persecutor. At pre- sent, our parent Church of Scotland endures a great fight of afflictions ; dark clouds hang over her. But we rejoice to see that the spirit of their fathers has descended upon her sons, and we doubt not but that, under the provi ■ dence of that God who has always been her refuge and strength in time of trouble, she will come out of the furnace of affliction, purified and refined. And if similar or greater trials be awaiting us, may God give us grace to bear them, may he enable us to pray for our perse- cutors — " Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." * Letters, p 152. LETTER III. BY THE REV. JAMES DENIIAM, LONDON DEKKY. Testimonies to a Baling Eldership firom Che Word of God — from the Early Churches — from the Christian Churches of the dark ages— from the Reformed (-'lunches. Present Position of the Church of Scotland. — Slavery of the Church of England. — Independence, Liberty and Advantages of the Irish Presbyterian Church. TO THE REV. A. BOYD, CURATE OF THE CATHEDRAL, LONDONDERRY. Ret. Sin, — It has always been esteemed good tactics in a controversialist who fights for party, rather than for principle, to excite the feelings of his readers, so that, being blinded by prejudice, they may not discern how im- movable are the positions he attacks, and how weak the assault which he makes on them. This manoeuvre you have tried in your re- ply to my sermon, :ind in attempting to kindle the odium theologicwm against me, you have not only descended to personalities, but in order to support your charges have most reck- lessly misquoted some expressions, and most unfairly misapplied others. Thus you assert the terms " idle drones" and " despots" were applied by me to the bishops of the Church of England. Now, the first was used in reference to certain otlicers, sii/i/ioscd to be in the church, in the itr(Zvrigoi, which con- ducted all common affairs. It was most na- tural for Christianity, developing itself out of Judaism, to embrace this form. This form must also, wherever Christians were establish- ed in the Roman empire among the Heathen, have appeared the most natural, for men were here accustomed, from of old, to see the affairs of towns carried on by a Senate."** Thus, sir, you have taken up a position, di- rectly opposed to that of some of the most learned men your church has ever possessed, and while you profess great reverence for them, * Vo'. i, 302. + Vol. i, 224. t Iren. par. ii, cliap. vi. 5 Grotius. II Salmasius. IT His. of Jews, p. 408. ** His. of Cli. religion, by Dr. A. Meander, translated by Rose, fellow of Cambridge, p. 187. and admiration of their masterly theology, I find that you are profoundly ignorant of their views. I may add that the very name syna- gogue was given by the apostles to the Chris- tian churches. Thus, James says in his epis- tle,* " If there come into your synagogue, /rvvwyuy/iv, a man with a gold ring." Amidst your ill- arranged statements on this subject, the only other objection I can find to a ruling eldership, as deducihle from the practice of the synagogue, is contained in these words, — " We cannot allow you to make a precedent of Israel in what things you please, and to reject the precedent in what things you do not please. If you turn to Moses for help, you must abide by all the institutions as well as by one." Indeed ! You ask, " why, if the synagogue be the model on which the Chris- tian church is reared, the model after which you profess to be formed, you do not follow that model?'' My answer is — we follow it so far as Christ and the apostles followed it, and that was so far as it was a suitable platform for the Christian church. But, sir, a principle which is good for the Church of Scotland, cannot be bad for the Church of England. You " affirm the temple was the model." Then, sir, as you cannot object to your own principle, " you must abide by all the institutions, as well as by one." Under the operation of this principle, there can be, ac- cording to your views, in the whole kingdom only a single church by " Divine appointment," and there must be hundreds of priests attend- ing this. There should be only one high priest. May I ask, among your many arch- priests, or archprelates, which is the real high priest? When you enter the cathedral, do you put off your shoes and stand bare-footed ? Do you lay aside your woollen dress and put on linen ? Do you wear a scarf, turban-like, round your head? — But I need not pursue this any farther. If your principle be a good one, you must go through with it, and ever after this, appear on the Sabbath in the dress I have described ; and now, that your atten- tion has been turned to it, your congregation will have an opportunity of judging, so often as they see you ascend the desk, whether you still think the temple should be the model of the Christian church. But alas ! sir, even though you should consent to place all the churches in the land except one, on the foot- ing of mere human institutions, and to wear the linen and the turban in order to establish the temple and level the synagogue, it will avail you nothing, for I have amply demonstrated that the elders joined with the priests, not only in ruling over the synagogue, but also over tho temple, so far as its discipline was concerned. I do not say they conducted its worship, or offered its sacrifices, — this was the peculiar duty of the priest, but they united with him in trying ecclesiastical causes, pro- nouncing judgment, and expelling the guilty, whether priests or people, from the. temple. If the temple be your model, and y r ou assert * Chap, ii, 2. EVERY APOSTOLIC CHURCH HAD A NUMBER OF ELDERS. 11: it is, then, as it was governed by a ruling eldership, you are bound by your own prin- ciple to adopt the institution. I am aware, that some serious Christians hesitate in receiving an argument on any sub- ject drawn from the customs or laws of the Jewish economy. But Buch should remember, that "every Jewish appointment which was not immediately subservient to the shadowsof the Mosaic law, hut to the preservation of so- cial order and the promoting of public good, is necessarily an unrepealed ordinance; for its end being never fully gained, its obligation can never be suspended." Now, as order must ever lie preserved in the church, unless there has been a distinct command, repealing the ordinance appointed by God for preserving it, we must consider that ordinance as still ex- isting. SECT. JV. JEVIUEXCE FROM THE HEW TESTA- HE ST. You enter upon the examination of my New Testament proofs, by declaring your comic lion, that " they will be found perfectly worthy of being classed with those we have already dissected." However I may differ from you on other points, I assure you, I fully agree with yon on this. My New Testament proofs will be found worthy of being classed with those we have examined ; and thus will the demon- stration be complete, that in a church profes- sing to be scripturally constituted, there should always be found a ruling eldership. My first argument is, that just as in every synagogue and in the temple, so in every apostolic church there were invariably a num- bjbb of elders. " They ordainedeZders in every church." " Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church." "Ordain chlcrs in every city." " Obey them that have the rule over you." Your first objection to the production of these passages of God's word is, that they are " concordance-gathered." Truly, this is a w< ighty reason ; and the best of it is, that I cannot now say whether, in examining my Bible on this subject, I used a concordance or not ; but if you think, that with any episco- palians the acknowledgment that I did so will make you appear clever, I most heartily give you a present id' it. You ask me three times, whether I was serious in quoting these texts in proof of lay elders. Sir, I am not prone to jest in the pulpit, nor do I ever in- dulge in ridiculing passages from the sacred Scriptures, by representing them to be, us you have done, " gigantic paste board figures." Our serious presbyterian people would not relish such flippant comment mi any part of God's testimony. I did quote them seriously, not in proof of " liii/ eldership, for I believe that no such officers should be in any church, but in evidence that in every early church there weir a number of elders. Vim most oncan- didly lead your readi rS t" BUppOM that I ar- gued I'm- the office, from the name being found in many texts, w hero a I 1 most expressly stated, that my argument sprung, not out of the name but out of the number. It was this, — evi ry church had a plurality of elders. These se vera! elders ruled over it, and to their autho- rity the people were called to submit. That these should all have been preachers we can not suppose, considering the circumstances of the churches. Many of them had but feu members, many of their cities were very small, and while the harvest of an unconverted world was vast, and millions perishing who had not yet heard of Jesus, and the labourers burning with zeal, and anxious to spread the knowledge of salvation, we cannot suppose that more than one preacher would be spared to a sit church. Had the Spirit of God said, " in every very large church ordain a plurality of elders," then there might be some ground for the sup position that these were preachers. But no. The command is to every church, whether large or small. Not one would be constituted according to the u arrangement of God," with- out a plurality of elders. Search the whole of the New Testament, and you will not dis- COVer a miliary ease, — not one instance of an organized congregation under the superinten- dence of only una cider. Is it so in your churches? If the rector be unwilling to work, or if a very faithful man, and overborne by the labours necessary in a large congregation, he may employ a curate ; but it is not the constitution nor the practice of the English establishment, to " ordain elders in every church." In other words, neither her consti- tution nor her practice is in accordance with the " arrangement of God." The only answer you attempt to give, after deceiving your readers as to the nature of my argument, is a dogmatical and totally unsup- ported assertion, that these texts " cannot by any probability be applied to lay (:') elders." You should at least have hazarded some proof for this assertion. If there had been a shadow of one, you are not the man to keep it to your- self. But now, sir, after examining the na- ture of that rule which existed in the church of God for loOO years previous to this dale, and also the peculiar circumstances of the churches, and the self-denying character of the preachers of this period, I think myself warranted in saying, that these texts cannot with any probability be supposed to refer to preachers alone. Here, when there is laf the Word especially."* Dr. Lightfoot, in ins re murks on 1st Epistle to Timothy, says — " He (Paul) prescribeth rules and qualifications for choosing of an elder. He speaketb of elders ruling only, and elders ruling and labouring * 1 Tim. v. 17.— Usshcr's Body of Divinity, p. 2"ii">. in the word and doctrine." * In referring to the Jewish elders, he says — "We may ob- serve from whence the apostle taketh his ex- pressions, when speaking of some elders ruling and labouring in word and doctrine, and some mil." f Bishop Burnet does not oppose our view of the text. Ho says— "St. Paul divides this title (elder) either into two different ranks, or into two different performances of the duties of the same rank — those that rule well, and those (hat labour in word and doctrine." + Fell, bishop of Oxford, says — " Paul is seen to have distinguished formerly between those presbyters who were rulers and doctors" § Dr Whitby, in his commentary on I Tim. v, 17, says—" Tho elders among the Jews were of two sorts, 1st, such as governed in the synagogue; and, 2nd, such as ministered in reading and expounding the Scriptures." After stating what these two classes of elders did, lie adds — "Accordingly, the apostle, reckon- ing up the offices God had appointed in the church, places teachers before governments." By the word before, Whitby evidently means above. Paul " places teachers above rulers." Dr. Fulke of Cambridge, in his commentary on 1 Tim. v, 17, says — "Else he mcaneth of thoso elders that St. Ambrose speaketh of, upon the first verse of this chapter, that were appointed only for government and not for teaching." Archbishop Potter, in his work on church government, says, page 155, " Lastly, there are teaching presbyters (doctores) spoken of in several other churches, by way of distinc- tion from other presbyters, who did not exer- cise this office of public teaching." This opinion he strengthens by a quotation from Dodwell, another high churchman, who says, " there were others in the eldership who were not teachers. Nor is this to be attributed to an error of later ages. That tho same thing existed under the apostles is manifest from 1 Tim. v, 17." || Dodwell adds, that it is wrong to regard these elders as having been laymen — and so say all prcsbytcrian writers. Let us now hear, after the sample of epis- copalian writers, what the great lights of the Independent Churches say. Owen writes, — " On the first proposal of this text, —that the elders that rule well are worthy Of double honour, especially those who labour in word and doctrine, a rational man, who is unprejudiced, who never heard of the contro- versy about ruling elders, can hardly avoid an apprehension that there are two sorts of elders, some that labour in the word and doctrine, and some vho do not so do. The truth is, it was interest and prejudice that first caused Borne learned men to strain their wits, to find out eva- • Vol. i. 308. + Vol. i. C12. t I Tim. v. 17. ? Ep. ail Tim. v. [".— Commentary on Cyprian, Bpis. 2'.t. ii "Fnisse ntiqne ali«s r- Preibyterio qui nnn faiuent doctores. Neo veroreoeiitioruni Beeolorum id crroii tri- baendmn erat Idem etiam »uh apoatolis obtfnuUsc constat ox. I Tim. v. 17."— Dod. Diss. vi. p. 111. 152 ELDERS IN THE EARLY CHURCHES. sions from the evidence of this testimony. Being so found out, some others of meaner abi- lities have been entangled by them." * Doddridge, in his commentary on ] Tim. v, 1 7, declares this text " to intimate, that there were some who, though tbey presided in the church, were not employed in preaching." Dicight says on this text — " Here St. Paul directs that preaching elders should he ac- counted worthy of more honour than ruling elders. As the rulers are here supposed to rule well, that is, to do their duty faithfully, it is clear that the superior honour given to those who preach, is given only on account of the superiority of their employment, "f I shall not quote the testimony of a single Scottish writer or commentator, as you would perhaps say there are none of them " unpreju- diced. " Though I should give you the ex- positions on this passage, of some of the most clear-headed and calm-thinking theologians, who have ever stood by the truth of God, the one reply, — they are prejudiced — however un- just and ungenerous, would get rid of them all. I shall only add that, by the Westminster di- vines, a number of whom were episcopalians, this text % is quoted as proving the distinction between ruling and preaching elders. As the valuable writings of the older and foreign divines are generally in a language not understood by many of our readers, I shall subjoin a few extracts from their expositions of this text in the Appendix, merely giving the names of some of them here — Parens, Pisca- tor, Tremellius, Turretine, Calvin, P. Martyr, Bullenger, Olivianus, Francius, Arnold, Mos- covius, Diodatus, Sopingius, Beza, Grotius, Slichtingius, Marckius, Neander. Annotations drawn up by, and expressing the mind of the celebrated Divines of the Synod of Doit Here are a considerable number of eminent expositors of all parties, and of different pe- riods and nations; episcopalian, independent, German, Swiss, French, Dutch,English, Ame- rican ; hut so profound was your ignorance, that yon were able to say, " I know no exposi- tor." But while you tell us all unprejudiced expositors have given up the passage as not supporting a ruling eldership, you very candidly give us the case of Beza§ as an illustration ; and from this we are enabled at once to perceive that, on evidence the most unsatisfactory and incon- clusive, you would not hesitate to draw that most sweeping conclusion, that all unprejudi- ced men had abandoned the text. You say, " it is evidently surrendered by Beza, who by his acknowledgment on this passage, ' that at this time Timothy was president of the pres- byters of Ephesus,' fairly lodges the ruling power with him." According to your state- ment, if any member of the synod of Ulster should acknowledge that I am this year pre- sident of the synod, he would by such ack- nowledgment, " fairly lodge the ruling power with me." And is it so, that being president * Owen on the True Nature of a Gospel Church. London, 1688, p. 143. + Vol. ii. 472. t 1 Timothy, v. 17. I Page 261 . ensures the possession of all the power of the House of Commons, or Chamber of Peers, or General Assembly, or even of a little Bible committee? Sir, you know the meaning of words too well to suppose for a moment that the possession of the presidency, implies the possession of the power ; but you counted largely on the gullibility of your readers. So far, indeed, is Beza from lodging all power with the president, that in the most unequivo- cal terms he states the equality of the rulers of the church : " For," says he, " so in the pres- bytery, composed partly of pastors and partly of the elders, pastors preside; but so, that neither these without those, nor those without these, can decree any thing in the censuring of morals and in the other ecclesiastical govern- ment common to both, but this whole matter is managed by a common and equal right of expressing opinion."* SEOT. V. ELDERS IN THE EARLY CHURCHE 8. In my discourse, which you have criticised so learnedly, I did little more than quote these texts, and now I must say I feel obliged to you for the opportunity you have afforded me of demonstrating how solid is the foundation they afford for this institution, not of a lay, but of a ruling eldership. Having done this, I shall go on to examine some of those testi- monies which prove the existence of this order of church officers, in every age from that of the apostles until the present day. In entering on this interesting part of the subject, imagining yourself a lawyer, you call out for those about to give their evidence. ' Let us have them on the witness table.' Cle- mens, of the first century, cheerfully rises. His testimony is in these words : " Let the flock of Christ enjoy peace with the elders that are set over it." You assure the jury that elders here means ministers, just as you asserted that all the elders of the New Testa- ment churches were ministers ; but as I then showed tbat every single church had a num- ber of elders, all of whom could not have been preachers, so here we find ' the flock ' having not one, but a number of elders. As the testimony of Origin, who lived about the year 226, is most important, I shall give the original of the part on which I rely in a note as I extracted it from Origin's work; and lest any might suspect my translation as being too favourable to my own cause, I shall give the whole passage as translated by archbishop Potter, in his work on church government, p. 260. Origin says, " They who have been but lately introduced, and have not received the symbol of purification, (that is Baptism,) are assigned to a different place from the rest, who have al- ready given full proof of their sincere resolution to addict themselves wholly to the christian doctrine and way of life. Some of these latter ARE ORDAINED TO INQUIRE INTO THE LIVES and conversations of those who present themselves * Beza against Saravius,p- 58. TESTIMONY OF ORIGEN AND AMBROSE. 153 to be admitted, in order to prohibit infamous and vile persons from coming into their assem My."* llad Origen said, it is the duty of all Ministers to enquire, your paraphrase of the passage might have been received. It is not so, he says not a word about ministers, but that some of the more advanced members <>/ the church were ordained to enquire into th<' lives of those desiring admission. Here let it be observed, it is not simply said that those or- dained in the church made enquiry,— if so, I admit it might refer to the ministers; but the specific object — the express purpose of this or- dination isgiven — notto preach — but to enquire, lie says there wire gome who were ordained to this duly, most plainly declaring it was not the especial duty for which others were appointed; that there were some whose duty it was, not to preach and instruct the people, but to exercise discipline and exclude those who committed fililiiness. You say nil ecclesiastics are ap- pointed to rule. ( higen says there were some. You say preaching is the work of emphatic importance to all elders. Origen says the duty, the highest work of some, was ruling. Sir, I hesitate not to say that the testimony of this witness is most conclusive. The next witness is Ambrose, who lived in the fourth century. In your observations on his evidence, with your usual dishonesty, you charge me with having stated (but you chari- tably though sneeringly hope under misguid- ance,) that, the comment of this father is on the seventeenth verse, when the fact is, I neither said nor insinuated any such thing. It was not enough to aver that I had been mis- led, and that the testimony made nothing for my argument, but you must add a gratuitous personal insult, conveyed in the hackneyed quotation, *' a little learning is a dangerous thing." You then go on to say, "yon trust" the passage " was gleaned from some second- hand authority," and you kindly propose to give it " not partially but J'nlti/" Y'ou assert " ////■ passage inns thus." .After this expression of supercilious contempt — this trust expressed that I bad not seen the original — and the as- surance that you would give the passage ./'«////, whalmnstbe the astonishment of all honourable and candid men, when told that you have not given the passage /'if////, and thoughyou boldly declare '• the passage runs thus," yet your quota- tion issodifierent from the original,thati1 is ma- nifest yon had never seen il, but had indeed " gleaned it from some second-hand authority." You give only a part of the first sentence ; the whole of the second sentence you omit, and the last, and one of the most important sentences of the passage, you leave out altogether. Sir, it is true, that as respects both i/onr cause and your character, even " a little learning is a danger ous thing," when brought to bear on your quo- tations in this controversy; for indeed, a very little is sufficient, not only to show that the testimony of the early church is on the side of presbyterianisiii, hut sullicient also to de- * " II«£ et ( lir! mis Ttray/iivoi -r/>i>s to fiXe- Tivmv reus (hiovi x.o.1 ret; ayuyas reus ir^esie- »T«y," Contra Celsinn ;{. tcct and expose the emptiness of your literary boastings, and the shameful disingenuousness of your statements. In order to prove the justness of these strictures, I subjoin in a foot-note the original,* which, I beg leave to assure you, I extracted not from any second- hand authority, but from the commentary of Ambrose. As the testimony is one of great value, I shall give it here in English: — " Because of the honour of age, one advan- ced in years should be provoked with mildness to do good works, that he may more readily receive admonition. For, when admonished he may fear, lest he should afterwards be cor- rected, which is dishonourable to an elder.— For among all nations old age is honourable, therefore both the synagogue and afterwards the church had elders without whose counsel no- thinrj tens done in the church. Which, by what negligence this became obsolete I know not, unless perhaps through the idleness or rather pride of the teachers while they alone wished to appear something." Your comment on this testimony is, that " The father speaks of aged persons entitled to respect." So then by elders (seniores) the jury is to understand, simply, old men. You make Ambrose declare with all gravity, and the important statement has been most carefully preserved, that long ago there were old men in the synagogue;— how marvellous ! and afterwards, still more mar- vellous, there were old men in the church ! ! but most marvellous of all, this custom ceased, and old men were no longer to be found among Christians ! ! ! I am sure the jury be- lieve every word of it. It will be observed, that in the commencement of the passage, Ambrose gives the reason why the term elder was applied to rulers, and this is so similar to that which I gave in my sermon, in ' Presby- terianism Defended,' it mightbe almost thought, I had plagiarised from Ambrose. I said, " The Jews generally chose persons of pru- dence and experience to occupy places of au- thority. These being usually advanced in years were called elders." If, however, from the explanation from Ambrose, why those councillors were called elders, you still argue that he merely meant there were old men in the church, I shall point you to two expres- sions in the passage, which indubitably fix the meaning of the term ' seniores' to be, not simply old men, but official elders. The first is his reference to the elders t >( the synagogue. After all we have beard of those important officers and of the duties they discharged, I defy any man of common sense to imagine, that when Ambrose speaks of the elders of the synagogue, he only means that there were old nun in it. The next is his reference to the * Propter honofiflcentism estatb ninjnrem natu cura inansin tmlinc ad bonum opus provocandum ut faclllui inicipial artmonitionrm. rotes! mini vereri oommoii- itui ne postca corriptatur, quod turpe est tenhtrl Nan apod omnra ntiqne (jinti-s bonoorabilii est KnecUii. [fade et Synagoga et poatea eccleala seniores baboiL (|uorum sin.- ooncilio nihil agebatuc in eccleala, Quod qua negligrntia obaoleverit, neaoio plai fiwto doetorom deaidia, ant magia aaperbia dam soli volant aliqnid tU derU"— (Commentaria iancti smbrosii Aliiliul.iut.nsi3 Rpucopi- I Tim. v, I. Pari* edit. 100:1. U 154 TERTULLIAN, CYPRIAN, AUGUSTINE, BINGHAM. Christian church. By your own translation he does not say, there were old men in the church, hut " the church had elders." What were they in the church ? They were rulers ; for he expressly says, " without ichosc counsel nothing was {lone." What was the state of this institution in his day ? It was falling into disuse. Why ? Because old men were ceas- ing to exist in the church ? Or because some learned men had proved a ruling eldership was a mere human institution ? Or because it had no foundation in antiquity ? So you would wish us to believe, and therefore you rudely put your hand on the mouth of the wit- ness when he came to this point; but he has spoken out, and his testimony will explain why we do not find a ruling eldership in many churches in the dark ages, and perhaps in some churches of the present day. He says, " by what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, unless perhaps by the idleness, or rather by the pride of the teachers, while they alone wished to appear something." Allow meuow to take up afew additional wit- nesses. There are records preserved at the end of Optatus, which, from the Annals of Baronius, some say, were written about the year a.d. 103, but which are generally sup- posed to have been written about the begin- ning of the fourth century ; they are called " Gesta Purgationis Crcciliani et Felicis." In one of them we have these words : " Ye bi- shops, presbyters, deacons, elders, (seniores.)" In another, " Call the clergy and elders (seni- ores) of the people, the ecclesiastical men." Another of these epistles is directed to " the clergy and elders." Tertullian, who lived about a.d. 200, in his Apology, chap, xxxix, says, " And those elders (seniores) who are approved, rule, having gained this honour not by price, but by testi- mony.''* Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, about a.d. 240, directs his twenty-ninth epistle to the elders, deacons, and brethren. In speaking of ap- pointing readers, he plainly distinguishes the elders who taught, from those who ruled, by calling them " teaching elders." Perhaps you will be ready, boldly to assert, that in those words Cyprian does not refer to any distinc- tion between teaching and ruling elders ; but Fell, bishop of Oxford, and Dodwell, also a prelatist, the Commentators of Cyprian, will rise up and rebuke your rash assertions, for on this passage they both candidly acknowledge, the distinction is made by Cyprian between teaching and ruling elders. Optatus lived about a.d. 365,f and he says, " For the church had many ornaments of gold and silver — which she committed to the elders as to faithful men." * " Si quis ita deliquirit, lit a communications ora- tionis et eonventus et omnis sancti commercii rele- getur. President probali quinque seniores ; honorem istum non pvecio, sed testimonio, adepti." Tertullian's apology extracted from the Magdeburg centuriators. — Cent. 3— p. 107— Ed., 1624. + Lib.i, p. 41— Edit., Paris, 1631. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, a.d. 420, in his book Contra Cresconium,* uses this ex- pression : " Peregrine the presbyter, and the elders (seniores,) of the Mustican region : " — writing to his church, epistle 136, he addresses his letter, " To the most beloved brethren the clergy, elders, (senioribus) and all the people of the church at Hippo." Now, here, the elders are distinguished from both the clergy and the people. Isidorus, who lived a.d. 596, speakingf of the duties of pastors, says, " The ciders of the people (seniores plebis) are first to be taught, that by them such as are placed under them may be more easily instructed." The Magdeburg Centuriators, who were Lu- theran Divines, and whose ecclesiastical his- tory is of the very highest authority, in speak- ing of the 3d cent, say, " so also they (the elders, seniores) determined or decided re- specting the excommunication of those who had fallen, and the receiving again of those who were penitent." J Bingham, in his' Antiquities of the Church,' refers to some of those testimonies. In giving even a few, he has saved his character as a historian ; but in the gloss which he attempts to put on them, he has shown what a bitter pill they are to l a churchman.' He says, tho magistrates were sometimes called " seniores locorum," elders of their cities, and our Saxon kings were called elders and aldennen. He might have added that we have still, in many of our cities, civil officers called aldermen or elderrnen; but to conclude, as he does, that when the " seniores ecclesiae," " the elders of the church" are mentioned, we are to under- stand kings and magistrates, must appear to every candid mind utterly absurd. Indeed, he is obliged to confess, that there were some " seniores ecclesiastici," ecclesiastical elders, to whom this explanation could not apply. And how does he manage these stubborn gen- tlemen ? Why, by saying they "may be com- pared to our churchwardens." Such are the miserable shifts which high churchmen are obliged to adopt, when overborne by the evi- dence which the history of the church sup- plies on this subject. Thus, in going back to antiquity, we dis- covered a ruling eldership placed by God's appointment in the Jewish church. We found one in every church of apostolic plant- ing. We found the institution existing for the first six hundred years of the Christian era. When corruptions are beginning to abound, discipline subverted, the clergy igno- rant, and proud, and profligate, the institution is lost sight of in the churches under the yoke of the Papacy. But wherever, amidst the sur- rounding darkness, we can discover a church possessing liberty and purity, there will we find a ruling eldership distinct fi-om the pas- tors ; and so soon as the light of the reforma- tion burst upon the world, we find the institu- tion again acknowledged as divine, and adopted * Lib.iii, p. 274. + Lib. iii, cap- 43. t Sic etiam de lapis aut excommunicato poenitcnti- bus recipiendis tractarunt. Cent. 3, p. 107. RULING ELDERS IN THE SYRIAN CHURCHES. J 55 by all the Protestant churches, not excepting even your own. The firstto whose practice I turned as prov- ing that all whichretained light, retained ruling elders, was the Syrian church, and my wit- ness respecting them is the Rev. Dr. Bucha- nan, an episcopalian. I said, it is generally supposed the Syrian Christians settled in the East within Ihc- Jirst three centuries. When discovered by the Europeans who first sailed round the Cape of Good Hope, they had never heard of the Pope of Rome. Dr. Buchanan visited cue of their churches and found three presbyters ox priests, two deacons, and three elders acting as office-bearers. Here let it be observed, I did not mark any part of this sen- tence, as being the precise words of the wit- ness, because his statement takes up about a page ; I merely gave the fact. Now, sir, how do you meet it ? I shall not characterise, but simply state the plan you adopt. You quote my words thus : Dr. 15., on the occasion of his visit in 1806, found in one of their churches three presbyters, two deacons, and three elders acting; and after the words, elders actinij, you add in a parenthesis, " this is your own ad- dition." Why, sir, every part of the sentence is my own ; but what is the impression made on your readers by this parenthesis placed im- mediately after the words " three elders act- ing'.'" It must be that I had most dishonestly added these words without having any autho- rity. Sir, you knew he stated that they had three elders, and disingenuously fixing your parenthesis in the position it occupies, you have tried to lead your readers into the belief, that I was giving false evidence on the sub- ject. I shall now accurately quote from Bu- chanan's winds : * " The three principal Chris- tians or lay eWers belonging to the church were named Abraham, Thomas, and Alexandras." I am sorry to be obliged to make a second charge against you in reference to this tes- timony. You (piote the expression of Bu- chanan in which lie says, " The Syrian chur- ches were accused by the Portuguese inqui- sitors with the ofTcnce of ' having no other orders or names of dignity in the church than bishops, priests, and deacons ;' " hut vim do not state that Buchanan, in a subsequent edition,f candidly acknowledges that he himself had in- terpolated the record. He says, in the docu- ment from which he took his statement, " the word priest is omitted — the expression is 'than bishop and deacon,' " which the author thought (!) was probably (!) a mistake, as the priesthood or order of Kasheeshas in Malabar was noto- rious, and therefore he inserted it in the for- mer editions. But on referring to the decrees of the synod of I Hamper, held 1599, he finds that there is no mention oibishojtt [ Italics his] but Only of priest and deacon. The words are, that "there are only two orders, diaco- nate and priesthooil." How, sir, did you venture, with this before your eyes, to quote as Buchanan's words — " Bishops, priests, ami deacons! 1 " I might » Page 114— 11th edit + London, 1819. have supposed you were ignorant of Bucha- nan's amended statement, were it not that we had in ' Presbyterianism Defended'* pointedly called your attention to these very words — " I u-o orders, Diaconate and Priesthood }" and had you not known they were correctly quo- ted, few will believe, after the spirit you have manifested, that you would not have exposed us for manufacturing the falsehood. O, sir, how could you, a protestant minister, stoop to repeat as testimony what the witness had ac- knowledged w T a*s a forgery ? I shall only add, that the evidence in favour of a ruling eldership derived from the practice of this church, existing as it did from the third century, through all the dark ages, must, by every candid mind, be felt of immense weight, and remains unaffected by your disreputable attempts to shake it. As to your remarks about the Syrian chur- ches being ruled by " Bishops " and " Pre- lates," made on the ground of their having had a metropolitan, I may observe, that they had not bishops or prelates, but only one, speaking of whose title, Buchanan acknowledges, he was " not proper) )i called bishop hut metropolitan." He does not say what were the peculiar powers or functions of this individual, nor do we know whether the original title would be best trans- lated by metropolitan or moderator ; but from his acknowledged interpolation of their docu- ment, we know under what a strong prelatical bias the translation was made ; and we know also that when Gilly, another churchman, speaks of the moderator of the Waldenses, he takes the liberty of calling him " the primate of their church." That up to the year 1599, the president of the Syrian churches could only have been in the rank of moderator, and not in that of prelate, is proved by that decree of their synod, in which they state, they had " only tivo orders, diaconate and priesthood." But even though it could be shown that, not- withstanding this decree, they had now an office something resembling a prelate, we would not be much surprised, as Buchanan tells us they have some ceremonies nearly allied to those of the Greek church,f and the person, whom he improperly calls bishop, acknowledged " that some customs had been introduced during their decline in the latter centuries, which bad no necessary connection with the constitution of their church."! Thus easily, sir, are your Syrian prelates, and all arguments drawn from them, blown away like chaff before the wind. We shall next examine the testimony af- forded by the churches of the Waldenses. It is generally believed, that through all the dark ages the Waldensian churches maintained purity of doctrine and discipline. Buyer, their historian, says — "God, through his provi- dence, has preserved the purity of the Gospel, in the valleys of Piedmont, from the time oftke apostles down to our own time.'\j Henry Ar nold, their minister, in the preface to his ac count of the recover] of their country, says * Pace 1-24. + Pag« lift t Page 131. { AbregG dc 1' Hist, des Vandoi«.p. 2.1 156 THE WALDENSES. (p. 14), " That their religion is as primitive as their name is venerable, is attested even by their adversaries. Reinerius the Inquisitor, in a report made by him to the pope on the sub- ject of their faith, expresses himself in these words, that they have existed from time im- memorial." In the twelfth century they con- verted nearly a thousand cities to their doc- trines — and in one battle in France lost a hundred thousand men. These facts shew their numbers and power were great.* In their confession, presented to Francis I, of France, in 1544, the Waldenses say — " This confession is that which we have received from our ancestors, even from hand to hand, ac- cording as their predecessors, in all times and in every age, have taught and delivered." In the 16th century, when writing to the Refor- mers, they say — " Our ancestors have often recounted to us, that we have existed from the time of the apostles." The Rev. G. S. Faber, prebendary of Sals- bury, in the preface to his Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Vallen- ces and Albigenses, says (p. 24), " From the apostolic age itself down to the present, that venerable church has been seated in the 'val- leys of the Cottian Alps. There it has never ceased to profess one and the same unvarying theological system, thus faithfully reflecting the sincere unadulterated Gospel of primitive Christianity : and there, both ecclesiastically and morally, the practice of its members has happily corresponded with their religious pro- fession." In the book of Revelation, xi, 3, God declares of his " two ivitnesses, they shall prophesy 1260 days clothed in sackcloth." Faber proves that the Waldenses and Albigen- ses are those witnesses. From the days of the apostles they continued to witness till 1 636, when the Duke of Savoy banished them and depopulated the valleys with a dreadful perse- cution. This was in January, and three years and a half after, according to the prophesy, Rev. xi. 11, the spirit of life entered into them, and under their pastor, Henry Arnold, they again entered the valleys, and after the most extraordinary victories over the troops of France and Savoy, established themselves in their ancient position. Though they do not now suffer martyrdom, they are still exposed to much affliction, and sore restrictions, so that they still prophesy in sackcloth. Now in ex- amining the subject of church government, it must be to every christian mind a question of deepest interest, under what form of it these selected and honoured witnesses of God preserved their existence, and their purity, and their testimony, during 18P0 years. To presbyterians it cannot but be a source of great gratification to know, that beyond all question these witnesses of Godever have been, and are at this moment, Presb'Stebians, scarcely differ- ing in any circumstance from the churches of Scotland and of Ulster. The first question to which we must here naturally turn our atten* tion is this — had these churches ruling elders ? * Lectures on the Headship of Christ, p. 30. On examining the constitution of the Wal- densian church, there is no honest man who would not be obliged at once to acknowledge that they had ruling elders distinct from pas- tors. This fact is so clearly stated by those who have written on the state of their church, that I thought it unnecessary to do more than quote from Rankin's History of France, what he says of the Waldenses and Albigenses : — " the pastors were assisted in the inspection of the people's morals by elders set apart for that purpose ; " and also, the following expression from their Confession of Faith : — " It is ne- cessary for the church to have pastors to preach God's word and also elders and deacons, according to the rules of good and holy church discipline, and the practice of the primitive church." How do you meet these distinct statements ? To Dr. Rankin's, you not only do not refer, but by the question you put to ine on the other, you most dishonestly implied that I had given only one testimony on the subject. You ask, " Have you any thing for it but your own idea, that the term elders in this confes- sion means the ecclesiastical officers for whom you contend ? " and you assert your belief that the title pastor relates to " the prelate of the church." Now, sir, I must again convict you either of gross fraud or of gross ignorance, by demonstrating out of lite very works you quote; 1st, that they have ruling elders, and 2nd, that they have not bishops or prelates. Sir S. Morcland, whose work was published in 1658, and to which you refer, gives us a copy of the confession of their faith, in which they say, " It is necessary that the church should have ministers together with ciders and deacons." He quotes the following passage from Bucer regarding the Waldenses. " Be- sides ministers of the word and sacraments, they have a certain college of men, excelling in prudence and gravity of spirit, whose office it is to admonish and correct offending bre- thren. " * Hugh Dyke Ackland (now Sir Hugh), in his history of the Vaudois or Waldenses, says, — " The synod presided over by the moderator, has always possessed the chief authority in the Vallensian church. It was composed, as at present, of all the pastors and a portion of the elders deputed by the people." " There was a third and monthly meeting in each of the val- leys, to enforce the discipline of the church. This was composed of the pastors respectively inhabiting them, with one or two elders from each parish." f He also gives the confession of their faith, from which I took my original proof. I shall only trouble you with one other proof, taken from the work of Rev. Dr. Gilly, rector of New Fambridge. He says — " The general affairs of the Waldensian church are regulated by a synod, which consists of the thirteen pastors and one elder from each pa- rish." J If these eye-witnesses are to be be- lieved rather than your assertions, the ques- * Page 60. + Page 82. t Page 70. THE WALDENSES. 157 tton is settled. Besides ns many i>;istors ns they had parishes, they had also ruling elders in each parish. But you bring proof that the Waldenses had prelates. Your first witness is Mosheim, who says — " The government of the church was committed by the Waldenses to bishops, presbyters, and deacons; for they acknow- ledged that these, three ecclesiastical orders were instituted by Christ himself." Now, if Mosheim had visited the valleys and examined for himself, we would have little doubt re- garding his testimony; but as we have no reason to suspect this, let us hear what Dr. Gilly, who did visit and examine them, says regarding Mosheim ; and 1 give the whole of what he asserts : — " Mosheim is far from be- ing correct in his account of the church of the Yaudois." * Pray, sir, after reading Gilly, did you not feel a blush on your cheek, while writing down the testimony thus disproved by a rector of your church? Your next witness is the Romanist Itaynerus. Of him I shall say nothing, until I come to Dr. Gilly's evi- dence. After him you refer to the work of Sir 8. Moreland, to prove that they dad pre- lates. In your preface you tell ns, you w take your quotations, not from second-hand sources, but from the originals themselves." I am bound to believe you ; and yet, on look - ing into this very scarce book, from which you profess to bring a testimony in favour of prelates, I confess I am astonished. For, in the first place, through every part of the vo- lume Morelaud gives the most decided evi- dence that the Waldenses never had prelates. In the next place the sentence which you quote to prove they had, and which you pro- fess to quote accurately from Moreland, you have most grievously mutilated. In order to establish this serious charge, the only wit- ness I shall call is Mr. Boyd himself. I may hare state, that since the first edition of" The Plea," Mr. Boyd in his pamphlet entitled " Misrepresentation llefuted," has given a new translation of the sentence, the original of which I give below, and which I copied from Moreland ; f and I shall just take the liberty of contrasting his former version, with the one he has recently given, by placing them in parallel columns — MR. BOYD's QUOTATION. Mil. BOYD'S RECENT TRANSLATION. "That Ood has given to "Among other powers his servants to select their God has given to his tom- BUhopa, (Itegidors), and petent servants to select constitute I'reshyters in governors of (he people, and their charges." I'reshyters' in their differ- ent charges, according to the variety of the work in the unity of Christ." Now, Mr. Boyd, let the reader compare those two \ersiutis — both your own. I would lie dis- posed to translate the sentence somewhat dif- » Page vii of Appendix. + " iintre lasantns DOteatU Diodonnea li serf, com- petent (|iiilli eslegissan regidors del pohle et preii.s en li lors ollicis scgoild la divcrsita de lulu anient en I'uni- ta de Christ." ferently; but even taking your last production as a counterpart of the original, did I not speak truly when I said that in your first, you had grievously mutilated it ? The word ' compe- Irnl,' though in the original, you left out — the words "of the people," words most important as fixing the meaning of the previous term, Regidors, you left out — the word "constitute" you added, and also the word " Bishop." Ac- cording to your mutilated sentence, they had bishops, and yet the people constituted the presbyters in their charges! I wonder you did not perceive that the " popular furnish- ing treatise," on which you depended, must have been blundering. The fact is, notwith- standing your boastful assertions about taking only from originals, you had never seen Moreland's book, but gathered the sentence you gave, from your episcopal friend, Gilly. You tell us you take your quotation from the 72nd page of Moreland. The passage is not there, but you had Mr. Gilly's authority for giving it, as that is the page to which re- ference is made in his book. — Nor could this discrepancy arise from quoting different edi- tions, as there was only one edition of More- land ever published. This charge of gathering at second-hand from Gilly, while you professed to quote from the original, you have not, I perceive, in your last production, either denied or answered. — The charge was true, and could not be denied — was proved, and could not be answered. We have now closely examined this passage of Moreland which you brought forward to prove the Waldenses had prelates, and lo, it has left you covered with shame, and at the same time proved that, while they had not prelates, they had presbyters and rulers, and that those were chosen by the people. I may mention that this testimony is taken from the second article of what is described by Moreland as " the ancient discipline of the evangelical church of the valleys of Piedmont, written in their own language, several hundred yean before either Luther or Calvin." Your next witness is Dr. Gilly, who mani- fests a strong liking not only for prelacy, but for popery. Lamenting their manner of burial at Geneva, he says — u No prayer commended the soul of the dead fur mercy, or spoke com- fort or consolation to the living." * Now, what is the strongest evidence he can give us, after a searching examination of the valleys ? An historical document, or part of a confession of their faith ? No ; but a loose conversation with one of their pastors, which, according to the taste of the person who afterwards wrote it down, might speak any thing or nothing. You say — " He conversed with the chief pas- tor of the churches, Peyrani ; and in reply to his question, whether there had not been bi- shops iii the Vaudois church, properly so cal- led, received this reply — Yes; and I should now be styled bishop, for mi/ office is virtually episcopal} but it would be absurd to retain the empty title, when we are too poor to support 158 THE WALDENSES. the dignity, and have little jurisdiction. The term moderator is therefore now in use among us, as heing more consistent with our humilia- tion. This is found in the 73d page of Gilly ; but you forgot to tell your readers what he says of M. Peyrani in the 75th page : — " It must be confessed, that his predilections led him to assign more importance to his own of- fice, than his real jurisdiction and the relaxed discipline of the churches of the valleys would strictly warrant." Gilly, however, as a true churchman, is most anxious, like yourself, to make the Waldenses prelatists, whether they will or not; and hence, when speaking of their moderator, whom Ackland would be satisfied to convert into a bishop, he at once constitutes an archbishop. He says — " The moderator who presides at the synod, and is the primate of the church." In appendix xi, however, he confesses — " For want of a regular and well continued history of the Waldenses, it is a difficult matter to assign a certain date to the period in which some of their most eminent pastors flourished : " but he adds — " Alix con- tends, that if we had such a history, it would be easy to make it appear that they have al- ways preserved among themselves a church government, and that they distinguished their clergy into three orders, bishops, priests, and deacons." That is, if prelatists could find any history whicli stated the Waldenses had pre- lates, it could then be proved that they had ! If they had proof, they could give it! But Alix and Gilly are obliged to acknowledge that there is no such history in existence. He gives, indeed, a statement (not a quotation) of the apostate inquisitor, Raynerus, who wrote in a.d. 1250, in which he is represented as saying, that the Vaudois had a chief bishop among them, who was always attended by two clergymen, one of whom he called his elder, and the other his younger son ; and that to the bishops were made the reports of those who were spreading their doctrines in foreign parts." Now, it has so happened, that this statement caught the attention of Moreland nearly two hundred years ago ; and I beg you to hear what your witness says of it : — " The monk Raynerus, in a treatise of his, doth indeed give a strange description of the office and customs of those barbs (ministers), namely, that they had a chief bishop amongst them, who had al- ways two attending him, the one whereof he called his eldest, and the other Iris youngest son, &c. With these or the like fictitious no- tions or chimeras, Raynerus would fain pos ■ sess the minds of men, but all in vain ; for it is manifest, by what is already inserted in the 5th chapter of this book, that both the calling of these ministers, and the administration of then - office, was quite of another nature and strain. We shall find that none of these pas- tors were empowered to act the least matter, without the consent and advice of their brethren and associates in the ministry." Here, be it observed, the Italics arc not mine, but More- land's. After this cross-examination of your wit- nesses, I think you would be satisfied to let the case drop; but, sir, you must allow me to call a few witnesses who shall give still far- ther evidence against you. Ackland declares of episcopal consecration, " This ornament of our church establishment, so justly cherished by us, is unquestionably no longer preserved among the Vaudois. They glory in the pre- servation of a successive apostolic doctrine."* Faber, in his Inquiry, says, " I readily confess I am not able to demonstrate the circumstance of their possessing an apostolical succession."^ Three hundred and ten years ago, that is, in 1530, a deputation from the Waldenses was sent to have a conference with some of the Re- formers, Haller, (Ecolampadius, &c. George Maurel, one of their ministers, says, in his address to GElcolampadius, that as regards " bishops, priests, and deacons" " these different ranks, hoxvever, did not exist amongst them."\ As to the ordination of the pastor, the Rev. Dr. Gilly says, " At present, orders con- ferred at Lausanne and Geneva (by presbyters) are held good after some confirmation on the part of then own moderator."§ But that the Waldenses have been for at least two hundred years presbyterians, even he acknowledges in these words : " The title of moderator was most probably substituted for that of bishop af- ter the year 1630, and with it the prcsbylerian for the episcopal hierarchy." Now observe, that with all his anxiety to find prelates, he does not assert they had such officers, but say r s " most probably." Let us then go back two hundred years to the accredited historian of that day, and try whether he knew any thing of their prelates. Moreland did not go to the valleys as a mere tourist, but as a commis- sioner from England. Before setting out, he tells us the lord primate of Ireland sent for him, and desired him to spare no pains or cost in procuring manuscripts, &c, to throw light on the ancient doctrine and discipline of these churches. He procured, by great pains and industry, a number of manuscripts, in some of which there is reference to Romish bishops, and to their own past ors ; but not a word to fa- vour the idea that they had prelates. A long list is preserved of the ancient pastors who had been eminent before his day, within the com- pass of five hundred years, and upwards, and not one of them is spoken of as a prelate, nor is any reference made to such an officer, which is quite incredible if they had prelates, as Gilly thinks probable, up to 1630. Many of these documents, Moreland says, had been written above 420 years before his day, and others 550 years ;|| so that by them we can trace their his- tory back to the year 1 150, at which time no prelates existed amongst them. Great efforts have indeed been made, from time to time, by pious episcopalians, and your " travelling preachers," or rich rectors, to con- vert the Waldenses from being presbyterians * Page 89. + Page 553. t .Scott's Con. of Rlilner, 3d Ed. i. 139. i Page 76. II Page 94. THE BOHEMIANS. 150 to become prelatists ; but these efforts have proved in vain. They are still resolved to maintain theii simplicity and their liberty. In the Archives imon people. Still she has between two and three millions of members. In the "Jitth article of her confession, drawn up in the year lo.jil, it is said, "We believe that this true church ought to be governed by * London, 1RI0. + in Constltnt. Ecc'eslast, A. n. lft-io. Art 09. ■• 1'i-esiis di i, |n\t.i praxis veteria et novi Tnstimenti apud alias rattonea evangelical confeuionis, p igatim hc oppadatim eligl, so consiitni anient— Quibua incucubit nt omnium Eocleaiae civiam ntamet converaatioiiem dillgentisaime obaarventet diaaolote vivmtesoommone faciant, aat, si opsas ait caaaam eornm ad pastorea, to tnmque Presbyteriam referent.'' — Voetitu, pais -2. lib -j, tract, :l. thai discipline which our Lord Jesus Christ hath established, so that there should be iii the church pastors, elders, and deacons." * The latter confession of Helvetia Was drawn up iii the year 1566, and subscribed by the churches of Bern, Scaphusia,Sangallia, Rhetia, M \ Maine, Bienna, Geneva, Savoi, Poland, and Hungary. Speaking of the ruling elders it Bays, " The el, Ins were the ancients, and as it were, the senators and fathers of the church, governing ii with wholesome counsel. The pastors did both keep the Lord's Mock," &cf The Belgian confession, drawn up in 1566, says in its 30th article, " We believe that this church ought to be ruled and governed by that spiritual regiment which God liiuise/f hath de- livered in his Word, so that there be placed in it pastors and ministers, purely to preach and rightly to administer the holy sacraments ; that there be also sen lores and deacons oSwhom the senate of the elmreh might consist. " J 111 " the orders for ecclesiastical discipline," for the. Isles of Guernsey, Gersy, Ssark, and Aide may, confirmed by the .synod of these isles, it is said, p. 7, " The elders ought to conduct the people by good order with the ministers." " Those which shall be chosen to go to the presbyteries and synods with the ministers, shall not. fail." The early English Puritans had ruling elders. In an account of their opinions, published by W. Ames, D.D., there is the following statement: — " Sith they judge it repugnant to the word of God, that any minister should be a sole ruler, and as it were a Pope so much as in one parish, (much more that he should be one over a whole di- ocese, province, or nation,) they hold that by God's ordinance the congregation should make choice of other officers, as assistants unto the minister, in the spiritual regiment of the con- gregation." You are aware, sir, that although the Methodists do not call them by the same name, and you tell us you do not care for names but things, they have a class of officers — stewards, and leaders, who are not preach- ers, but who, like our ruling elders, exercise discipline in the churches. The Independents, too, have their committees and deacons; re- garding the last of whom Mr. James com- plains, that in some churches they claim au- thority both over the pastor and the members, and think that in virtue of their office, their opinion is to be law in all matters of church government. The episcopalians in America have virtually ruling elders, as lay delegates sit in their ecclesiastical courts. "There are attached to each < oiigregation a body of lay assessors along with the clergyman, who con- duct all cases of discipline, very much after the manner of our Kirk sessions; and in each diooess there is a convention or synod, com- posed of all the clergy within the bounds, and a lay representative of each congregation; the bishop acting as moderator es-nj/ieiti, and in * I orimer'e Bist. p. 20. + Harmony of Confessions, p. 211. I Harmony, p. 257. 162 RULING ELDERS IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. his absence the court electing one of their own number to supply his place." * Now, sir, I have collected the one-tenth, all you are pleased to'' grant me, of the protestant world. The nine-tenths stand with you. Pray tell us who they are, or where they are to be found, for I confess I do not know. Nay, sir, the facts are just the reverse of what you have stated. The nine tenths of the protestant world are on this point arrayed loith us, and against you. And if any episcopalians doubt this statement, I only request that they will read the testimony of the Hon. and Rev. Bap- tist W. Noel of London, one of the most dis- tinguished ministers of your church. In a tract lately published by him, speaking of an individual who, after much deliberation and prayer, had become a presbyterian, Mr. Noel candidly acknowledges : " His conclusions were supported by the decisions of several of the protestant churches. The Lutheran, Swiss, French, Dutch, and Scotch churches, the church of the Vaudois, and a large and pious section of the American church, were all on his side. While in favour of episcopacy, be- sides the Church of Rome, ' the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,' and the eastern churches, which are nearly as corrupt, he found only the Church of England and three or four small sections of the Church of Christ elsewhere, who had retained diocesan episco- pacy." But I have stated my conviction, that by going back to the time of the Reformation, we could discover the planting of this institution of ruling elders in every protestant church, not excepting even your own. Baxter, in his treatise on episcopacy,f says, " Archbishop Cranmer, with the rest of the commissioners, appointed by king Edward VI, for the refor- mation of ecclesiastical laws, decreed the ad- ministering discipline in every parish church by the minister and certain elders. Labouring and intending by all means to bring in the ancient discipline." The volume which con- tains these laws is entitled 'Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,' &c. A reformation of laws ecclesiastical, first commenced by the authority of Henry VIII, then carried out and advanced to this degree by Edward VI, and now pub- lished according to their more complete refor- mation. "Evening prayers being ended, . . . the principal minister, whom they call ' Parochum,' parson, a deacon, if present, or in case of their absence, the curate and the elders (et seniores), with the people, shall take account of the money set apart for pious pur- poses, in what manner it can be best expended, and at the same time discipline shall be main- tained. . . . Afterwards the minister, with- drawing with some elders, shall take counsel in what manner the others, whose morals are said to be depraved," &c.J * Burns' reply to Wade, p. 5. + Partii, p. 112. I Page 45. Now here the expression is not, elders of the people, which I presume you would trans- late the old men of the people, but it is the ministers and elders, with the people — making them to be not of the people, but a distinct class of officers. In the reign of queen Elizabeth, the Rev. Dean Nowell drew up a catechism, which was sanctioned by the same convocation which pas sed the 39 articles. — Randolph, bishop of Lon- don, in the preface to his work which contains this catechism, says, " Nowell's catechism had the express sanction of convocation," and again he says, " Nowell's catechism is an account of the doctrines of the church at the period when it had been restored and established under queen Elizabeth." * In it the following remarkable passages occur, where unworthy persons are spoken of as being in the church : " What remedy then can be discovered and applied to this evil ? In churches well consti- tuted and regulated, as I said before, a certain form and order of government was instituted and observed. Elders were chosen, that is, ecclesiastical rulers, who maintained and ex- ercised ecclesiastical discipline. To these pertained authority, reproof, and punishment ; they also, the pastor uniting with them, if they knew any, who, by false opinions or turbulent errors, or old wives' superstitions, or vicious and wicked lives, brought great and public scandal on the church of God, and who could not come to the Lord's supper without profa- nation, repelled them from the communion and cast them out, nor admitted them again until by public penitence they satisfied the church. " What is to be done then ? " Finally, that they may be admitted again into the church, and to its holy mysteries, from which they were deservedly cast out, they ought suppliantly to entreat and pray. . . . . When, in the judgment of the elders and pastor, satisfaction shall have been made by the chastisement of him who offended, and for an example of others, he who had been excom- municated may be admitted again to the com- munion of the church." f * Page 7 + Quod ergo remedium huic malo inveniendum est atque adhibeudum ? In Ecclesiis bene institutis atque moratis, certa ut antea dixi, ratio alque ordo guberna- tionia instituebatur atque observabatur. Deligebaptor seniores, id est magistratus ecclesiastici, qui discipli- nam ecclesiasticatn teiurent atque colerent. Ad hos authoritas, animadversio atque castigatio censoria pertinebant ; hi adhibito etiam pastore, si quo9 esse cognoverant, qui vel opinionibus falsis vel turbulentis erroribus, vel anilibus superstitionibus vel vita vitiosa flagitiosaque raagnam publice offensionem Erclesiae Dei adferrent, quique ccena? Dominica? profanatioue accedere non possent, eas a communione repellabant, alque rejeciebant, neque rursum admittebant donee Pcenitentia publica Ecclesise satisfecissent. Quid deinde net? Postremo, ut in Ecclesiam, e qua suo merilo ejecti sunt, et ad sancta ejus mysteria rursum admittantur suppliciter postulare, atque orare debent . . . . . Ubi seniorum pastorisque judicio, et ejus qui peccavit castigationi, etexemplo aliorum satisfactum fuerit, rursum ad communionem ecclpsia? qui erat excommu- nicatus admittebatur.— Euchiridion Theologicum, Ox- ford Ed. 1825. REASONS WHY THEY WERE NOT RETAINED. 163 Bishop Burnet * says, " There were many learned and pious divines in the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign, who, being driven be- yond sea, had observed the new model set up in Geneva and other places for the censuring of scandalous persons, of mixed judicatories of the ministers and laity, (called by the bi- shops, a little before, elders,) and thetee reflect- ing on the great looseness of life which had uiiiversallybeciicc mi plained ofinkingEdward's time, thought such a platform might be an ef- fectual way for keeping out a return of the like disorders." The bishop tells us also the rea- son which induced Elizabeth not to adopt this. " Lord Burleigh, and others, demonstrated to her, that these new models would certainly bring with them a, great abatement of her pre- rogative ; since, if the concerns of religion came into popular hands, there would be a power set up distinct from hers, over which she could have no authority. This she per- oeived well, and therefore resolved to main- tain the ancient government of the church." On learning that the Convocation had re- solved on adopting a ruling eldership, I doubt not many have asked, Why has not the Eng- lish church such officers now ? Bishop Bur- net has given the answer ; and be it observed, this is the only reason which he assigns as having influenced the queen to reject the council of her " many learned and pious di- vines," and not to permit the adopting of a ruling eldership. When the House of Com- mons were about to bring in a bill for farther reformation in the government of the church, the queen ordered the speaker to acquaint them, " that she had considered the objections, and looked on them as frivolous, and that the platform itself was most prejudicial to her crown." f Here, then, you see why you have not now such a class of officers in the Church of England ; and why, also, she adopted the Romish model of church government The same reason is given by archbishop Whitgift, though expressed in a less ollensive form. He says, '' I know that in the primitive church (hey had in every church certain seniors, to whom the government of the congregation was committed, bat that was before there was any < 'hristian prince <>r magistrate that openly pro- fessed tlic gospel."} Archbishop Parker, a half papist, said the "Queen was the mily ft icml of the church, and supported it by a vigorous execution of the penal laws, and by resolving to admit of no motion lor reformation but what should arise from herself." Neal tells us, " more sanguinary laws were made in her reign than in any of her predecessors; her bands were stained with the blood of papists and PI KIT INS."§ The consequence of this haughty assumption of supremacy, and ferocious tyranny in sup- porting it, was soon visible over the kingdom. " When archbishop Parker \i.-ited Ids diocess, •Preface to 'JnJ 1'urt His. Reformation. + Neal, i, 385, t Defence against Cartwright. i NeaJ, i, 471, 472. the greater part of the beneficed clergy were either mechanics, or mass-priests in disguise ; many churches were shut up, and in those that were open, not a sermon was to be heard in some counties within the compass of twenty miles; the people perished for lack of know- ledge, while men who were capable of instruct: in;/ them were kept out of the church, or at least denied all preferment in it. But the queen was not so much concerned for this as for maintaining her supremacy." * Here, then, you learn from bishop Bumct the motives which influenced Elizabeth to es- tablish the Romish form of church govern- ment, and to put down every attempt to bring your church to a nearer conformity to all the reformed churches and to the word of God, and from archbishop Parker, and Neal, yon learn that the instruments employed to secure the objects of her cursed ambition could only be paralleled by the Spanish Inquisition. The same reasons, the same motives, influenced James, the successor to Elizabeth, to prevent the establishment of presbytery. In the as- sembly in Edinburgh, 1590, he thanked God he was the king of the " purest kirk in the world." " As for our neighbour kirk of Eng- land," said he, " their service is an ill-said mass in English; they want nothing of the mass but the liftings." When he came to the English tlnone, why did he not reform the church, and bring it nearer " the purest kirk in the world " ? He was urged to do so at the Hampton Court conference, but he had tasted the pleasure of being supreme head of the church, and told the ministers " He found they were aiming at a Scots presbytery, which agrees with monarchy as well as God with the devil." f But, independent of these attempts of your early, most learned, and most distin- guished divines, the Church of England has always had a mimic and miniature office, cor- responding in some measure to our ruling eldership. Her church-wardens are required to do the very duty implied in the name often given on the continent to ruling elders. They are the " censores morum," censors of the conduct of the people. In a canon of the year 1571, as quoted by Bullingbroke, ii. 1217, they are directed to give a friendly and bro- therly admonition to sinners, that they may re- pent, which, if they do not, they shall notify them to the rector, or vicar, or curate, that by them they may be admonished more sharply. Those who continue in sin they shall expose in the visitations of the bishops and archdea cons. By canon 88, " the church wardens and two or three more discreet persons in every parish, to be chosen for side-men or as- sistants by the minister and parishioners, shall diligently see that all parishioners duly resort to their church upon all Sundays and holy days, and there continue the whole time of divine service. And all such as shall be found slack or negligent in resorting to the church, they shall earnestly call upon them, and after » Neal, i, 113. + Neal, i, 10. 164 CHARACTER OF PRESBYTERIAN ELDERS. due monition, if they amend not, they shall present them to the ordinary of the place." * On this subject, there is a startling passage in the • Tracts for the Times,' 59. " Every church-warden in every parish in England is called on, once a-year, to attend the visitation of his archdeacon. At this time oaths are tendered to him respecting his different duties, and among other things, he sivears that he will present to the archdeacon the names of all such inhabitants of his parish, as are lead- ing notoriously immoral lives. This oath is regularly taken once a-year by every church- warden in England: yet I believe such a thing as any single presentation for notoriously immoral conduct, has scarcely been heard of for a century ; so that it would certainly seem, that if, within this last century, any notoriously immoral man has been residing in any parish in England, the church-wardens of that parish have been perjured." Without presumption, I think I may now say, I have demonstrated that the institution of the Riding Eldership has ever existed in the church of God, and that it bears the stamp of Divine appointment. Allow me, before pro- ceeding farther, to remind you of the steps by which we advanced in the examination of this subject. In the first place, we saw from your own acknowledgments, that the, institution ap- proves itself, as reasonable, to the judgments of men. We discovered, that when God estab- lished the Jewish Church, he placed her under a spiritual government, composed partly of Priests and partly of Elders. We had evi- dence that the synagogues were early estab- lished under the direction of the prophets of God, and that every synagogue was governed by a Ruling Eldership. In the New Testa- ment, christian churches are called synagogues by Divine authority; and we have the ac- knowledgment of the most learned men of the English, as well as of other churches, that the government and order of the synagogue was the model according to which the frame-work of the christian church was erected. We found in every church of the New Testament, with- out one solitary exception, a number of elders. From the epistle to the Romans, to the Co- rinthians, to Timothy, we learned that the great duty to which some of these elders were or- dained was that of Ruling. We proved, by very many quotations from the fathers, that the institution existed in the christian church for the first GOO years ; that was till the pope- dom was set up, and the clergy became igno- rant, and immoral, and tyrannical. During the dark ages, the institution was retained in every church which retained light, or purity ; and at the glorious Reformation, all the Pro- testant churches, including that of England, adopted the institution. It is true, your church has now cast away this valuable and scriptural order of church officers ; in this however *he is not alone, for on her right hand is the de- graded Greek church, and on her left the church of Rome ; while opposed to her, and * Bullingbroke, ii, 1252. arrayed along with us, are nearly all the chur- ches of the Reformation. You conclude your attack on the office of ruling elders, by a page of contempt, poured on the character of the men who hold the office. You speak of our elders as men " whose code of morality is as imperfect as their kuowledge of theology ;" "whose education is contracted;" " whose passions are unsubdued and unforgiv- ing;" " and who cannot rule themselves." Sir, when you spake thus, you spoke unadvisedly. You know not our elders, and should not have ventured to calumniate them. You sneer at their " avocations," and " their judgment of live yoke of oxen being immeasurably beyond their appreciation of the five points." I unhesitat- ingly declare my conviction, that, as a body, they understand the theology of the Bible, and even the five points, much better than a great number of your curates who have been schooled into the drivelling theology of some Puseyite professor in Dublin or Oxford. I will venture to assert, that ninety out of a hundred of these men could not tell what the five points are : and much less take up their Bibles and defend the truth on each point. I have sometimes known your young clergy, full of contempt, like yourself, for presbyterian elders, come into contact with them. So long as the subject was the saints' days and festivals, — or the Greek poets, or the traditions of the fathers, they en- joyed a triumph; but the moment some vital and all- important doctrine of Christianity came to be discussed, they were made to feel how superior these despised men were in their knowledge of true theology, and from the vigo- rous grasp of their intelligent and well-discip- lined minds, they shrunk back into their shell of college mysticism. Indeed you do yourself, in another page, bear testimony to the familiar acquaintanceship of our presbyterian people with even the depths and difficulties of reli- gion. You speak of the members of your church being unlike presbyterians in this, that " they are not trained up to sharp contentions about what may be, and what may not be a pastor's views about predestination and free agency, — moral accountability and divine so- vereignty : the origin of evil, and the person of Melchisedec.'' These are not the five points, but they are subjects equally difficult; aud ii' our people generally are so well trained, is it not evident that your present description of those who are chosen as the most intelligent and the most grave, and the most godly of our congregations, is even on your own showing utterly and shamefully at variance with the truth ? As to their avocations, it is true some of them may be following the oxen between the points of the plough; yet have I often known such spend the evening of the day be- side the bed of the dying, or in the house of mourning; and I am not sure but they were as well fitted for their duty, by their day's " avo- cation," as those who, calling themselves " apo- stolically ordained ministers," had spent it loitering in total neglect of ministerial labour, or in field sports, following the pointer or the hound. I know you would not approve of any CHURCH COURTS.— EXAMINATION OF XV. CHAPTER OF ACTS. 165 ministers of the gospel thus wasting their time, but as you must be aware that personal cha- racter is tender ground, you should be cautious not to excite a too keen observation of the men who fill your parishes, many of whom are held to be as good judges of horses and ploughs and oxen as any of our ruling elders. SECT. VI. — CHURCH COURTS. For the sake of some who may not have read my discourse, I think it right to restate, that apart from each other, and as individuals, our elders do not perform any judicial act. When called to exercise discipline, they must do it in a regular meeting of the eldership assem- bled in the name of the Lord Jesus. The el- ders witli the pastor presiding as moderator form a court, called " The Session." Again, in Scripture we often find the congregations of a particular district united as one church, and representatives from each, meeting in one common judicature to settle matters of common interest to all. This is called " The 1'resby- fery." In addition to presbyteries we have a superior court called a Synod, or Assembly, in which the members of the several presbyteries meet. You say, with these " I have little con- cern." Yet, you cannot pass on to something that does concern you, without manifesting a desire to oppose every thing pertaining to pres- byterianism. You declare, " For some of these terms (Session, Presbytery, Synod,) I look in vain to Scripture." What a triumphant argu- ment! Presbyterians should never again ven- ture on a defence of the Trinity, for the term is not in the whole Bible ! On my observations regarding the Synod of Jerusalem,' * to which I referred as the model of our synods, you have given your criticisms, and in them yon have certainly demonstrated that I am totally ignorant of my own system. You make me say that the people were cot only present, but had a vote in the formation and issuing of the decree. Sir, there is not one line or word in all I have said to warrant your putting forth such a statement as being mine. The opinion 1 Qever held, and unless being so bigoted as aever even to have enquired what presbyter- ianism is, you could not but have known that in our church courts the people have no voice or rote, except through the rulers whom they ha\ e themselves chosen. It is true the advooates of Congregational or independent churches say, not only that the people should be present in church courts, which presbyterians admit, but that they Should take a part in the discussion ami deci- sion of the questions which may be debated. This opinion ihey endeavour to establish by reference to three verses in this 15th chap, of Acts. They say, that the expression in the 12th verse, ",/// the multitude kepi silence,'' implies that the people had a right to speak. If in writing an account of OUT last Assembly, I should say, 'while Dr. A. and Mr. B. spoke, the i pie kept silence,' this Burely would not be proof that the people had a right to take * Act.., \v. part in the discussion. But there is no proof that the phrase, "the multitude,'' refers to any but the members of the council. The church in Jerusalem consisted at this time of many thousand members (Acts xxi. 20, in the Greek, many myriads), and must have had many ru- lers who were here assembled. There were also the delegates from other churches, and as the whole people of the church could not have been there, the expression, " all the mul- titude," must mean the multitude of rulers. Luke, the writer of the Acts, uses the very same words to describe the Jewish Sanhed- rim or council, which consisted of seventy members, — Acts, xxiii, 1, 7. In Luke, xxiii, 1, it is said the whole multitude led Jesus to Pilate. Now Matthew says (xxvii, J, 2,) this multitude was the priests and elders — the council, and Mark (xy. 1,) says the very same thing. Independents again refer to the expression in the 22nd verse of the 15th of Acts, " it pleased the apostles and elders with the whole church," and say that here the church means the people. We find the same form of ex- pression in Mark, xv. 1 — " The chief priests held a consultation with the elders, and scribes, and the whole counciL'' Now here the coun- cil is not something different from the priests, and elders, and scribes, for it just consisted of those very persons ; so it pleased the apostles and elders, with the unanimous voice of the whole church, or whole council, to send cho- sen men. But even supposing a crowd of people present who were not rulers, and that it could be shown, the expression, Ihe whale church, refers to them, yet the fact that they were all pleased with the decision, does not prove that they had a right to take part in the discussion. How often has it been so in our presbyterian church courts;' Independents also refer to the 23d verse, to the letter of the synod, which is said to be in the name of "the apostles, and elders, and brethren," and say the brethren were the peo- ple. Now here some learned men say, by " brethren," we are not to understand the peo- ple, but delegates from the churches (v. 2 & 27), as Judas and Silas. Independents, how- ever, insist the brethren were a class altogether distinct from the elders. It will be observed that this distinction rests entirely on the par- ticle " and" being inserted between the two words, —elders, brethren. Now if this particle were removed, and the words read, ' the apos- tles and elders — brethren,' that is, not Jewish but Christian elders, the argument for demo- cracy in church government tails to the ground. That it should be removed we are convinced, for three reasons, — 1st, The verse would not then be contradictory of the rest of the narra- tive; — Paul and Barnabas, we are told, wire senl, not to the people, but " to the OfOttles and elders about this question." "The opes ties and elders came together to consider this matter." The decree is expressly said to have been ordained not by the people but by "the apostles inn/ elders." 2nd, In scripture we often find two words descriptive of the same 166 BISHOPS' COURTS person, put together without the particle be- tween them. Thus the tenn men — brethren, is often applied to Christians to distinguish them from Jews ; and to Jews to distinguish them from heathens, as in the following pas- sages, where the English reader will mark that the particle " and " is printed with italics, to show that it is not in the original Greek : — Acts, i, 16; ii, 29,37; xiii, 15,26,38; xv, 7, 13; xxiii, 1; xxviii, 17. In every one of these instances the translators have put in the word 'and,' between 'men — brethren,' though not in the original. Paul says, 1 Cor. ix, 5, have we not power to lead about a wife -^sister ? that is, a Christian wife. Now just as our translators have done, put in the word ' and ' in the cases I have given, so may some early transcriber, thinking it would read bet- ter, have put in the corresponding Greek word Kca. 3d, The particle (Kai, and) was not be- tween the words in the time of Irenams, as he gives the phrase " Apostoli et presbyteri — fratres," — apostles and presbyters — brethren. The old Latin or Vulgate reads it, " Seniores — fratres," — elders — brethren. The particle is also wanting in the Alexandrian, and other MSS. of high authority. * If Independents will not admit this change, for the reasons I have given, still they are sufficient to show that the little word Kctl — and, does not stand so firmly in the place it occupies, as to form a foundation for the erection of a spiritual de- mocracy over the church of God. If, on the other hand, the criticism be correct, then is the evidence conclusive, that the question in the synod of Jerusalem was settled by those to whom it was referred, and to whom alone the decree is attributed, namely, "the apostles and elders. " After this full and explicit de- claration of our views as to what this 15th chap, of the Acts teaches respecting the people voting in church courts, I hope you will not again, Mr. Boyd, either mistake or misrepresent the sentiments of Presbyterians on the subject. For your next blunder I know not well how to account. You lead your readers to suppose I quoted this chapter, to prove that those whom you are pleased to call lay elders took part in this synod. Why, sir, with regard to them, as distinct from preaching elders, I did not here say one word, nor did it once occur to me to refer to them. The transactions of this synod I gave, not to prove any thing whatever about ruling elders, but to show, in opposition to the system of independency on the one hand, that the church's rulers should meet in a deliber- ative and judicial assembly ; and to demon- strate, on the other, in opposition to the usurped claims of the would-be-alone successors to the apostles, the prelates, that the presbyters of the church exercised full ecclesiastical authority in hearing the case, writing the reply, and or- daining the decree. The delegates from An- tioch were directed to " go up to the apostles and elders about this question." " The apos- tles and elders came together to cousider this matter." " When there had been much dis- * See Potler on Church Gov., 7th Ed., p. 224. puting, " " the decrees were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem, and so were the churches established in the faith." Sir, it is laughable to see a man with a braggadocio air threatening to demolish his opponent, and yet not daring to look him in the face. You take up a point, the ruling el- dership, on which no question had here been raised, and you glide past the real question at issue hi this part of my discourse — the right of presbyters to sit and rule in all church courts. I was led here most naturally to 6peak of the authority and power which, according to God's word, ecclesiastical courts possess. Their authority is merely ministerial — that is, as Christ's servants they declare and carry into execution Christ's laws. Their power is only spiritual — a force which exerts itself, not in controlling the persons of men, not in inflicting bodily penalties, not in taking possession of their properties, not in giving them over to the civil power, but in warning, rebuking, or ex- cluding from the church. And this power they can only exercise over those who have volun- tarily joined the church. The strong contrast whichexists between this description of Christ's courts and the character of your bishops' courts roused your wrath to madness ; and hence I am immediately placed in fellowship with the chartist and the infidel. And do you really mean to persuade us, that these your courts of discipline are scriptural in their constitution, their forms, their officers, or their punishments ? Let me suppose a lord bishop seated on his bench : a charge has been brought against some poor man — a summons has been served on him to appear in the court of a church with which he has never had any connection — to this he has not paid any attention; an order is issued, and armed men go to his home, seize him, drag him, it may be many miles, throw him into the common jail as a felon, and there he may he for years. Suppose the apostle Paul to rise from his grave, and while looking on this scene, he hears some "learned church- man, " like yourself, proving that these rulers of the church, and these alone, are the succes- sors of the apostles, would he not inindignation denounce the wrong you did him and his fel- low apostles ? Would he not say, — No, sir, no, — these are not the weapons of our warfare ; "what had we to do to judge them that were without?" Such church coui-ts bear no re- semblance to those over which we presided. In your remarks on this subject, you do not once refer to the testimonies I adduced, prov- ing the iniquity of those courts. Lord Claren- don says, — " I never yet spoke with one cler- gyman who hath made the experience of both litigations, that hath not ingenuously confes- sed he had rather, in respect of his trouble, charge, and satisfaction to his understanding, have three suits depending in Westminster Hall, than one in the Arches, or any eccle- siastical court. " Bishop Burnet, speaking of them,* says, — " Where too often fees are more strictly looked after than the correction of man- * Preface to History of Reformation. UNSCRirTURAL AND TYRANNICAL. 167 ners." Ncal says,* — " The method of pro- ceeding was dilatory and vexatious, — if the prisoner was dismissed, he was almost ruined with the costs." When Earl Radnor, then Lord Folkstone, induced Sir William Scott to bring in a law to improve the church courts, it was stated, that many prisons contained per- sons who had been immured in them for twenty, thirty, forty, and fifty years, through inability to pay enormous costs. But you boldly ask for a " living instance," for the case of " a man stripped of his last far- thing, and consigned to a dungeon by the de- cree of a bishop's court." Well, I shall satisfy you in this, and that without the slightest dif- ficulty. You ask for one case, I shall give you a number : — " Memorial of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, to the Right Hon- ourable Lord John Russell, 7S, the Assembly adopted the Book of Policy, which all her ministers were obliged to subscribe; in which the presuyterian form of church government is laid down, and the prelalical form repudiated. At this time the Regent endeavoured to influence the ministers of the church by mercenary motives to submit to his dictation, and when this failed, he sent for the noble hearted Melville, and in a private interview tried to coerce him by threats. In a menacing tone he said — "There will never be quietness in this country till half-a-dozen of you be hanged, or banished the country." " Tush sir; (replied Melville,) threaten your courtiers after that manner ; it is tho same to me whether I rot in the air or in the ground. The earth is the Lord's. Patria est ubicunquc est bene. I have been ready to give my life where it would not have been so well wared at the pleasure of my God. I have lived out of your country ten years as well as in it. Let God be glorified ; it will not be in your power to hang or exile his truth."* In 1580, the As- sembly authoritatively abolished the office of prelate. Notwithstanding this, in 1581, Robert Montgomery allowed himself to be nominated archbishop of Glasgow. The church court prohibited him from accepting the office, when he applied to the privy council, and obtained a warrant, interdicting the Assembly from pro- ceeding against him for any thing connected willi the bishopric. The Assembly disregard- ed the interdict, just as she is doing now, and pronounced him worthy of excommunication. Montgomery then professed repentance, and promised to give up bis purpose. He, how- ever, broke his promise and was excommuni- cated. The privy council declared the sen- tence void. Did tho Assembly then yield to this usurped power by the king, and acknow- ledge him to have control over them? No. They immediately drew up a remonstrance, and appointed commissioners to present it to tin- king in council. In this remonstrance they respectfully but firmly say — "Your ma- jesty, by desire of some councillors, is caused to take upon you a Spiritual power and autho- rity, which properly behmgeth to Christ as sole Kiioj and Head of the Kill;, the ministry and execution whereof it is only given unto such as bear office in the ecclesiastical government in the same, so that in your highness's person some men press to erect a new popedom, as » M'Crie's life of Melville, p. 196. though your majesty could not be full king and head of this commonwealth, unless as well the spiritual as the temporal sword be put into your highness's hands: unless Christ be be- reft of his authority, and the two jurisdictions confounded which God hath divided." The commissioners wcro admitted to the king in council, and the remonstrance was presented by Andrew Melville. When it had been read, the favourite Arran, looking round the Assem- bly with a threatening countenance, exclaim- ed, " Who dares subscribe these treasonable articles ? " " We daiie," replied Melville, and advancing to the table, he took the pen from the clerk and subscribed. The other commis- sioners immediately followed his example. Did James persist in his claim to tho spiritual authority, and imprison those noble ministers of the church ? No. He gave way ; Mont- gomery submitted, and thus was the free juris- diction of the church faithfully and fearlessly asserted on tho one hand, and practically re- cognised on the other. Show me, if you can, such another chapter in the history of the Church of England. But James, as became a tyrant, was resolved to grasp in his own hand all power, both civil and ecclesiastical, and in 1584, prevailed with a cringing parliament to pass what are called ' The Black Acts' By these the church was deprived of all her power; Episcopacy was established, and the king made supreme in all things, both temporal and spiritual. These Acts were proclaimed, as was then usual, at the cross of Edinburgh. Did the church give her consent to those Acts ? — Did she now enter into an agreement depriving her of her liberty ? No. Two of her ministers attended at the cross of Edinburgh, and the moment they were proclaimed, protested against them in the name of the Church of Scotland. And the king was made afterwards to feel that there was a spirit which might be aroused, and a power put forth in Scotland, to which courts and tyrants must yield. The church courts continued to meet — passed most important Acts — deposed min- isters who became bishops ; and waged un- ceasing warfare with the usurper of her pre- rogatives, till in 1502, " because of his present difficulties," he was obliged to yield back her liberty, and recognise her independent autho- rity. There was an Act then passed entitled " Ratification of the liberty of the true kirk," 8tc. This Act does not pretend to bestow power or privilege ; it docs not institute the General Assembly, or presbytery, or session, but acknowledges an inherent power in the church, by divine right, to exercise government. The " Act ratifies and approves the General Assemblies appointed by the said kikk." And again, it " ratifies and approves the pres- byteries and particular sessions LPPOIKTEO BT Tin. Sim kihk." The Act goes on to say: " His highness and estates foresaid, lias abro- gated, eassed, and annulled, and by the tenor hereof, abrogates, casses, and annuls all and whatsoever acts, laws, and statutes, made at any tiino beforo the day and date hereof, against the liberty of the true kirk, jurisdic- \x 170 INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. tion, and discipline thereof, as the same j'sused and exercised within the realm." Yet in your letter this is the period referred to — these, the acts, by which Scotland's church stretched forth her hands to receive the fetters. In 1604 the king re-commenced his attack on the liberties of the church, by preventing the meeting of the Assembly. In 1605, a number of ministers, who had been elected by the presbyteries to attend the Assembly, met in Aberdeen. After constituting the meeting by prayer, a messenger from the king com- manded them to dismiss. Having appointed the time and place for the next meeting, they immediately did so. Notwithstanding this, they were summoned before the privy council, and six of them were condemned to perpetual banishment. In 1606 the parliament restored prelacy, and declared the king supreme " in all causes, both spiritual and temporal." Still the sanction of the church herself to these measures was thought necessary. To pro- cure this, the king had recourse to the vilest means. He summoned a number of the ablest ministers up to London, on pretence of desiring a conference with them, and then he imprisoned them. A number of others were declared rebels, and imprisoned in Scotland, or banished. He sent to the presbyteries the names of those ministers whom he wished to come to the Assembly, and who were, of course, the least likely to oppose him : and Row states, he lavished gold so freely, that to set up prelacy cost him £300,000 sterling. When Charles I. came to the throne, he re- solved to perfect the work his father begun : yet, after prelacy had been established 20 years, it had made no progress in gaining the affections of the people, and the spirit of pres- byterianism remained unextinguished. In 1636 a liturgy for public worship was pre- pared, and all the ministers were commanded to read it. On the 23d July, 1637, when the Dean of Edinburgh commenced to use it, an old woman, Janet Geddes, hurled her stool at his head, and on it rung the funeral knell of prelacy in Scotland. After this, the people were joined by the ministers and nobles, and in March 1638 the national covenant was re- newed, and sworn to by thousands of every rank. In November 1638 the General As- sembly met — asserted their intrinsic right to meet as a court of Christ — deposed the bi- shops— condemned prelacy, and, with the royal threats denounced against them, swept away all that James and Charles had, by blood and bribery, endeavoured to establish. Originally there were only about two hun- dred of the thousand parishes of Scotland under patrons. The rest were free, yet in the day of his usurped power, James placed them all under the system of patronage, and then scattered them among his fawning courtiers. But in 1 649, patronage was entirely abolished, and the choice of the minister vested in the elders and people. After the restoration^ Charles II. resolved to walk in the steps of his father and grandfather, and in 1661, procured Acts of parliament, declaring all power ec- clesiastical to be lodged in him. " Not a few of the members of parliament who passed these Acts were habitually intoxicated, and the pro- ceedings had again and again to be adjourned, owing to the gross drunkenness of the royal commissioner." * At the same time 400 min- isters were banished by an atrocious act of the privy council, when they were all intoxicated. The Duke of Hamilton told Burnet, who has left it on record, " that they were all so drunk that day, that they were not capable of consi- dering any thing that was laid before them." Did the church acknowledge this erastian au- thority ? No. Again was she guilty of " living in a non-recognition of the state's rights." And dearly did she pay for what you call her dis- honesty, what I call her glorious liberty. "Min- isters were driven to the wilds, and their flocks scattered; the substance of the people wasted by fines or the rapine of a savage sol- diery, let loose on the land. Sons murdered under form of law for succouring a dying pa- rent; parents for harbouring a hunted son; multitudes imprisoned, driven to exile, or led to death ; neither age nor sex regarded by a ruthless soldiery, or more ruthless judge ; the bright light of youth quenched in blood; the dim eye of age blasted by the flash that dealt death upon a darling child ; the fingers of the tender maiden burnt with fire ; the strong limb of the grown man crushed in the fearful boot ; the trembling hands of palsied age racked in the merciless screw ; and thousands martyred for their faith, of whose names no roll is kept any where but under the altar, and about the throne of the Lamb ; where an exact account of their numbers will at last be found. During this long night of cruel woe, when the piteous cry arose, ' How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood ? ' — the suffering remnant bore witness to the great doctrine of the headship of the Lord Jesus, with a constancy not wonderful, for it rested on faith in God, but most noble. If they would have renounced it, and acknow- ledged that civil supremacy which is now once more asserted, though in other hands, all their sufferings would have ceased. Simply by ac- knowledging this, the victim might have step- ped from the place of torture or the very scaf- fold, unscathed ; the inhabitants of the dun- geon might have breathed the free air of heaven — the prisoners on the rock of the sea, or in the dismal cavern on the stormy shore, who, year after year, had heard no sound save that of the howling wind and the dashing waves, might have rested on the sunny braesides of their sheltered glens, listening with grateful hearts to the bleating of their flocks ; many a scattered family might again have met toge- ther ; the dark walls of many a cottage, long desolate and silent, might have been brighten- ed by the blaze from an encircled hearth, and have resounded at morning and evening with the glad psalm of praise ; the minister, hunted upon the mountains, might have been restored * Lovimer'sHist. p, 323. SUFFERINGS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 171 to a peaceful home ; and his flock, no more assembling with arms for their defence, to worship their God by the wild linn or the bar- ren moor, might have been called by the tink- ling of their own Sabbath bell, to the much- loved church in the midst of their fathers' graves. Faithful, however, unto the death, they bore all sufferings und withstood the strong yearnings of nature, willing rather to endure the afflictions of the people of God, than to prove traitors to their heavenly King, by acknowledging an encroachment on his sacred power." " The cruelties," says Lorimer, in his his- tory, " were savage, worthy of cannibals ; they were refined, worthy of fiends. Even Sir Walter Scott repeatedly says, that they seemed as if suggested by Satan. By degrees the whole frame of government seemed converted into one vast court of Inquisition, in which the episcopal clergy of all ranks held a con- spicuous place, as informers, witnesses, or judges." " The result of the whole was, that in 28 years, in a small and poor country like Scotland, there were above 20,000 persons, of all ranks and conditions, and both sexes, brought under the grinding oppression of the persecution." * At the Revolution, when William came to the throne, the persecuted church escaped from the furnace. Whilst we confess we have strong objections to the ecclesiastical settlement which was then effected, yet, considering the fiery trial through which the church had j ust passed — the number of her enemies, and the magnitude of her difficulties, we cannot wonder that she should have consented to submit to an arrange- ment, which, though not what she desired, yet seemed to promise respite from her suffering, and repose to her weary spirit. There was an Act passed in 1690, by which the liberties of the church were restored, and all power vested in the church courts. The right of presenting ministers was given to the heritors and kirk session, who were to " name and propose the person to the whole congregation, to be either approvrn or disproven hg them." Ample com- pensation was at the same time given to the patrons, and the freedom of the people secu- red. The Union of England and Scotland took place about 1707, when so jealous were the Scots for the liberty of their church, that they refused to allow fhe commissioners to treat of it at all in negociating the terms of the Union. The}' said, we will discuss with yon the subjects of taxation, &.c, " but the question of our church must not be mooted. You must take our church as you find it ; we will have no union at all unless v«m agree to tie yourselves down by the most solemn engagements from cMi Interfering with it." Accordingly this act of security was passed, declaring that the upholding the Church of Scotland in her exist- ing constitution " should be a fundamental and essential condition of the union in all time coming." This act was pau se d by the parlia- ment of Scotland and then of England. In * Lorimct's Hist p. 325. five years after, Toryism had acquired im- mense power, and the Jacobites, with the iff famous and infidel Bolingbroke at their head, sought to overturn the protestant succession, and again place a papist on the throne. To accomplish this plan, it was first necessary t» destroy the spirit of liberty in the Scottish nation, by placing over the parishes time-ser- ving pastors, and as a step to this, they resol- ved to take from the people the power of elect- ing their ministers, and to restore the patron- age to the ancient patrons. By this they vio- lated the solemn compact with Scotland and Scotland's church. But did the church regard this, as you would have us to believe, in the light of a " contract " ? On the contrary, the nation and the church so loudly remonstrated, that while those who carried the law in Eng- land's parliament would not rescind it, they dared not act on it, until the church came under the control and guidance of men who preferred flattering those in power to maintain- ing the people's liberty and Christ's preroga- tive. It was not till so late a period as 1782, that the Assembly ceased giving instructions every year to the commission to seek from government the " redress from the grievance of Patronage ;" and let it be remembered, the church has never yet acquiesced in the restora- tion of Patronage. Fearful have been the evils which have flowed from that act of Anne to the Church of Scotland ; but now a law has been enacted by the General Assembly, not of course rescinding the act of parliament, but giving the people a Veto, and securing that worthless or unacceptable ministers should not be forced on them. The law officers of the crown, before the passing of the. Veto Act, de - clared the church had full power to do so. It was introduced by one of the judges of the land, acting as an elder. Five judges have since given the same opinion. It has been, however, decided by a majority, and that deci- sion has been confirmed by the House of Lords, that under the infamous act of Anne — infamous in its nature, and infamous as pas- sed in disregard and violation of the most solemn national covenant — the Church of Scot- land has not the power to shield her people from being insulted and wronged. The courts of law say she holds her privileges on the con- dition of disregarding the people, obeying the patron, and ordaining any man he may ap- point The church hitherto did not BUppose she could give a title to the manse and stipend in disregard of the patron, but she did suppose it lay altogether with her, in every case to de- termine whether she would perforin the spirit- ual act of ordaining a man to the cure of souls ; and that if from any cause she thought it sin- ful to do so, no power on earth would or could coerce her. It now seems she is bound, and all her authority consists in giving effect to the wishes of patrons and the decrees of civil courts. Such a condition was never before known to the church. This is the first occa- sion, since the Revolution, that courts of law interfered in ecclesiastical matters. Lord 172 PRESENT STRUGGLES OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. Cockburn, one- of the judges of Scotland, says, " This certainly leaves few traces of what I hare hitherto been accustomed to think the Church of Scotland." This brings me to your statement of the case of Mr. Young. He was presented to the parish of Auchterarder, and out of 330 heads of families, communicants, a person acting for the patron, and two others signed his call, while 287 dissented and refused to have him. He brought an action against the presbytery because they would not ordain him over these people. The courts of law decided that he had a legal claim to the parish. You quote part of the resolution to which the church came. " They resolved to offer no farther re- sistance to the claims of Mr. Young." Sir, why did you stop your quotation here, and withhold what was so necessary to explain the meaning of this ? You leave your readers under the impression that the presbytery con- sented to ordain him. This is another in- stance of your disingenuous quotations — of your suppression of the truth. They resolved not to offer any opposition to his getting the sti- pend if the civil power chose to give it, but they as firmly resolved not to ordain him. Nearly the same thing has happened in seve- ral other parishes, and you tell us with evi • dent pleasure that the presbytery was brought before the civil tribunal, and punished for disobedience. Sir, I feel proud to think they did not fear to act as did their fathers. They are prepared to bear all consequences ; nor is this empty declamation, for punishments of no trivial kind are now impending over them ; fines and imprisonment are in almost certain prospect j but are they shrinking? So far from it, every step they take is only a more determined avowal that the blood-bought liber- ties they inherit they will never yield to any civil court, whether legislative or judicial. But it may be said, this is rebellion; and it maybe asked, on what grounds does the church attempt to justify opposition to the courts of law ? There are three grounds on which she takes her stand, and pleads not guilty to the charge of rebellion. First, that she never made the alleged contract. Second, that the Assem- bly is itself a court recognised by the law of the land, and in her own department supreme, and therefore a co-ordinate court cannot coerce her. But it may be said, did she not recog- nise the supremacy of the House of Lords by appealing to it ? No: she carefully guarded against this. She said, the court of Session is doing us a wrong ; you have power to control that court, because superior to it ; and we ask you to do so. She has entered our province ; we ask you to compel her to retire. Suppose a traveller attacked by a mastiff dog, and he appeals to the owner or master to take him off. Does he in this acknowledge the master of the dog as his master, or as having any right to tear him by his dog, if malicious enough to do so ? Certainly not. So the Church of Scot- land said to the House of Lords, we do not acknowledge your supremacy over us, but we know you are superior to the court of Session, and ask you to set that court right. But if the Church of Scotland be, in the assertion of her independence, guilty of dishonesty and rebel- lion, it is a very singular fact that she is so with the concurrence of the government of the country. The committee of the Assembly ap- pointed to wait on her majesty's government, and state the circumstances in which the church is placed, received the following reply: " In the disposal of those livings which are in the nomination of the crown, its patronage will most certainly be exercised in accordance with the existing law of the church ;" and on the subject of the act of queen Anne, by which the church was bound, "they would give instruc- tions to the Lord Advocate to prepare, along with the procurator, a measure to be submitted to the cabinet." Notwithstanding this, the civil courts will not allow matters to rest till the obnoxious law be repealed, but are resolved to claim superiority over the Assembly, and punish her ministers for obeying her com- mands, just as they have done with the House of Commons. They have claimed superiority over it, and within the last month have pun- ished its servant, Hansard, for obeying its commands. Do you suppose, sir, the Com- mons House of Parliament will acknowledge themselves guilty of rebellion for refusing obedience to these courts ? Certainly not ; and neither will the supremo court of Scotland's church. Third. But though the government and the parliament, and the courts, were all united against her, still would she refuse obedience. When they would command her to do that which she knows it would be sinful to do, she must refuse. She will not, she has said, offer any resistance to the taking away of her glebes and manses and stipend; the government have the power to do with them as they please ; but she must resist, even to the death, a despotism in spiritual things. She must take her stand with the three children of Israel, refusing obe- dience, and entering the fiery furnace; or with Daniel in the lion's den, or with Peter and John, and say, when forced to do that which is iniquity, " We ought to obey God rather than men." I have gone at considerable length into this subject, as I desire, that at least the presbyte- rian people should understand something of the real character and history of the Church of Scotland's wrongs, and sufferings, and struggles. But there are yet two points which might seem to make questionable the perfect liberty of the Irish branch of the pres- byterian established church ; and as these re- spect ourselves, I must refer to them for a mo- ment. The Westminster Confession of Faith we have adopted as the confession of our faith ; but you lead your readers to suppose that it was not adopted by the church till first approved of by the state. You say, — " They drew up, indeed, what they thought ought to be the Con- fession of Faith ; but they submitted it to par- liament. It was read over, article by article, PRESENT STRUGGLES OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. 173 and approved of in parliament ; ami it was then ratified as the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland. What says the act of 1690 ?" &c. Well, it is most strange the blunders in- to which "learned churchmen" and learned Lawyers sometimes fall. Your informant seems to suppose, and you have not corrected him, that it was in the year 1690 the draft was pre- sented, as what might he a confession] to the parliament. This, 1 suppose, would he re- ceived as an undoubted historical fact by your episcopal readers; hut all presbyterians who have the Confession, and they all should hate it, would know that it displays the grossest historical ignorance. In 1643, the Westmin- ster Assembly was called together. The com- missioners sent from Scotland brought the Confession hack with them. Did the Assem- bly then go with it to parliament, and ask their approval!' They did not. Without any refe- rence to the state's approval or disapproval, they passed an act, adopting the Westminster Confession as the Confession of the Church of Scotland. Nor was it till two years after this, that the. parliament took up the subject, and approved the Confession. All this you would ha\ e learned, if you had condescended to look into the preface to the Confession, as the seve- ral acts, with their dates, are there contained. What could have brought your informant into a mistake of no less than forty-three years, it is not easy to imagine, unless it was, that in consequence of Charles II. rescinding the acts for the establishing of the presbytcrian church, it was found, at the revolution, that although the Church had never for a moment parted with her Confession, yet it had now no civil sanction. This act of KiiH), however, recog- nises the Confession not as a new thing now to be adopted, but as "the avowed confession of this church." So that both in 1649 and lG'JO, so far from the church taking her confession from the state, the state took it from the church, and inserted in the statute-hookas recordingthe doctrines which the church held and agreed to teach, and from H Inch if she departed into gross In resy,the state would have the right as well as the power to withdraw from all connection with her. But did the church at any time depart from her confession? No. She ever con tinned to teach it, whether existing as an es- tablished, or a persecuted church. You ask, what means the tact of the Gene- ral Assembly being presided over — opened and closed by a layman, the king's represen- tative? We bold that the king, by himself or representative, has a right to be present at any assembly of his subjects, to see that no- thing be done contrary to the well being of the state. But if the king do not choose to be prevent, the Lssemblj Of the Church of Scot land is not affected by his absence. There were thirty nine meetings of the Assembly before tin king ^at in it in anj waj ; and it is said the practice of constant attendance arose from king James's loudness for theological discussion, "ion state, that be presides over the Assembly. Hero again is a display of your ignorance. The moderator, and the moderator alone, presides. The king's com- missioner is neither the president nor a mem- ber of the Assembly. He has no vote, he at- taches no signature to any act, and is not addressed, save in a vote of thanks to the sovereign forthe protection atlbrded the church. Permit me to quote a sentence from the speech of Lord Brougham in the House of Lords, in the Auchterarder case: — "The crown was not considered as the head of the Church of Scot- land, more than any of their lordships. The lord high commissioner was never consulted in any one way. He was merely present, but had no authority whatever. He was merely informed that tin' assembly had adjourned, in order that he might know when ho was to meet them again." You quote a passage from the 23d chapter of the Confession, to show- that we do recognise the king to have power in the church. This argument you seem to have taken from the speech of the Lord Pre- sident ; and I might readily state as my an- swer, did I not fear to be tedious, the clear and admirable reply which was given to it, and which is lying before me. It is enough to say, that the way to interpret a passage, is not to take it isolated and alone ; that the in- tentions of any public body are best known by their acts ; and that the meaning attached to any document is best discovered in the comment afforded by the practice of those who drew it up. I ask you, sir, to look back on the acts of the men who framed and drew up that Confession, and say, whether they were erastian in their principles, and crouching slaves to civil power in their practice ? They were not ; and therefore boldly stated in their Confession, that " the civil magistrate may not assume to himself the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; " that is, may not assume to govern the church. And again they say, in 30th chapter, " The Lord Jesus, as king and head of the church, hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate." Thus, sir, have I demonstrated, by a bare narration of facts, how ardently the Church of Scotland loves her liberty, and how fondly she clings to it; how ineffectual has been every attempt to wrest it from her; and though at this moment involved again in the same struggle which 20(1 years ago tinged the dark heath-bells of the mountains with a deeper purple, — a purple extracted from the noble hearts of her patriotic and lady children, yet do wo look forward with the same assurance of her victory, as though the breeze had al- ready borne the shout of triumph to OUT ear. siei. viii. — SLAVES? 0» Tin: cuvkcii of BUG] \N D. Put just as Scotland's church has clung to her liberties, so has England's church to her chains — the chains which bind her at the Chariot wheel of tile D arch Nor is there any prospect of her obtaining freedom, so long 174 THE QUEEN THE HEAD OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. as the spirit which you display actuates her children. You give us, in describing the pre- sent state of the Church of Scotland, the dark- est picture that could well be drawn of a church in slavery, and yet you call this only a " salu- tary restraint ; " you say, " I see no slavery in all this." If you are a fair sample, what a different spirit actuates the ministers of Eng- land's church, from that which breathes and burns in the hearts of the men of Scotland. You say, " such liberty I covet not ; " yet for such liberty the ministers of Scotland, not the young alone, but the aged and the venerable, are at this moment ready to part with all they possess, and leaving their comfortable homes to take their places in the cold damp dungeon ; nor can we say how soon this shall be the fate of a considerable number of them. Your letter, sir, has explained to me a mystery which I never before fully comprehended; it has solved the enigma — why in this country ty- ranny had always linked itself to prelacy. It has answered the question — why did the Stewart race so unceasingly struggle for the establishment of prelacy ? They had disco- vered that there is something in the system which tends to extinguish the spirit of liberty; and no one can read your avowals without perceiving that it produces the very same ef- fect in the present day. It was the motto of those tyrants, ' no bishop no king,' and it was, as I have already shown you, the desire of maintaining her high prerogative and despotic power, which induced Elizabeth to resist the earnest entreaties of the godly ministers of her day to establish presbytery in England. But as I have given a sketch of my own church's history, and her determined struggles, permit me to glance over yours and mark her unresisting submissions. About the same time that popery was abolished in Scotland, because an antichristian system, and the church left uncontrolled and altogether for years uninterfered with by the state, the par- liament destroyed the papal jurisdiction in England, not on the ground that popery was erroneous, but expressly on the ground that " the king's majesty justly and rightly is, and ought to be supreme head of the Church of England." The whole ecclesiastical authority held by the Pope was transferred to the Crown, to which it was declared dejure to belong. In the 26th of Henry it was enacted, " that our sovereign Lord, his heirs and successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend all such errors, heresies, &c, whatever they be, which by any manner of spiritual authority or juris- diction ought or may be lawfully reformed." By 1st Elizabeth "All jurisdictions, &c, spi- ritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority have been lawfully exercised in the visitation of the ec- clesiastical state and persons, and for the refor- mation, order, and correction of the same, &c, should for ever be united and annexed to the imperial crown." In the 37th Article it is said, " The king's majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, unto whom the chief government of all the estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain." But you tell me this is an old objection ; therefore I say, it should have been long since removed. You say, " Head in a spiritual sense the monarch is not. " Why, sir, the Acts of Henry and Elizabeth both assert his spiritual authority. If the Pope's authority was spiri- tual, then, as the whole of it was transferred to the crown, it must be spiritual too. Dr. Boy- ton is against you, for he asserted, in his ser- mon before the primate (since published), that " the ministers of the church owe an obedience to the laws of the state, even when these regu- late merely spiritual duties. " Nay, you bear witness against yourself. You say,* — " you are, as we are, members of an established church. Being an established church, she (the Church of Scotland) has been taken into connection with the state, and therefore the state assumes and exercises a right to inter- fere in her concerns — her concerns not only temporal but spiritual. " Here then is your own acknowledgment that the state can, and has a right to interfere in the spiritual things of established churches. But while you ac- knowledge it, and Dr. Boyton acknowledges it, and the acts of parliament assert it, no one ac- knowledges it with regard to the Church of Scotland. On this subject Dr. Chalmers, and you know he is no enemy to your church, says, " There is one difference so palpable between the two Establishments, that one might say, it is graven on their very foreheads. By the one the king is professed to be the head of the church. By the other, the Lord Jesus Christ is acknowledged to be the only true head of the church. " Now this I find in the work which contains his late letter to the English clergy, and therefore written under circum- stances in which he would be most anxious not to offend ; from which I draw the conclusion that the dignitaries of the English church do not regard the statement as untrue or offensive, that the queen is the head of the church. But let us examine what she can do in your church, and wo will find a great many spiritual things in which she has the direct control, and that too, with the full consent of the church; for you say, " I trust the day may be far distant when the Church of England will forget her solemn engagements, and palliate the infraction of a treaty by dignifying it with the sacred but misapplied name of independence. " The title is indeed sacred, and there is no lack of evi- dence to prove, that if applied to the Church of England it would be utterly " misapplied." I gave you some of this evidence before ; but the copy of our volume which you purchased must unfortunately have had some pages torn out, as you pass it by without a remark. I think it right, however, to give you another op- portunity of studying the subject, as it may be * Page 222. THE QUEEN THE HEAD OP THE ENGLISH CHURCH. 175 useful for you fully to know the constitution of your own church. I. The clergy have all their authority to rule and ordain from the queen. In 37 Hen. VIII, cap. 17, it is declared that " archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of juris- diction ecclesiastical, but by, under, and/rum his royal majesty, and that his majesty is the only supreme head of the Church of England and Ireland. " "The bishops took out commissions from the king, by which they acknowledged that all jurisdiction, civil and ecclesiastical, flowed from the king, and that they exercised it only at the king's courtesy, and that as they had it of his bounty, so they would be ready to deliver it up at his pleasure; and therefore the king did em- power them in his stead to ordain, give in- stitution, and do all the other parts of the epis- copal function." Bishop Burnet adds, — " By this they wero mado the king's ministers in- deed. "» In vol. ii. 4, he says, — " In the first year of the reign of Edward VI., all that held offices wero required to come and renew their com- missions. Among the rest the bishops came and took out such commissions as were granted in the former reign, namely, to hold their bi- shoprics during pleasure, and were empowered in the king's name, as his delegates to perform all the parts of the episcopal function " In the ecclesiastical canons agreed upon in Lon- don, a.d. 1603, the following enactment is contained in the thirty-sixth : " No person shall hereafter be received into the ministry, . . . except he shall first subscribe . . . That the king's majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions and coun- tries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical tilings, or causes, as temporal." II. The clergy cannot meet in convocation without the queen's leave. After Henry was declared head of the Eng- lish church, the clergy assembled in convo cation sent up their submission to the king — ■ the contents were, " that the clergy acknow- ledged all convocations ought to be assembled by the king's writ, and promised in verbo sacer- dotii, that they would never make nor execute any new canons or constitutions without the royal assent" This submission was confirmed by parliament. In the preface to the ' Con- stitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical,' king Charles says, — " Forasmuch as the said arch- bishops, fee., having met, and by virtue of our saiil authority granted unto them, have treated of, " &C. III. Having met, they can enact nothing without the queen's consent. In the king's declaration, prefixed to the thirty-nine articles, he says, — " The clergy in convocation is to settle them, (differences,) having first obtained leave under our broad seal so to do, and we approving their said ordinances * Hist, of Ref. abridged, i, 228. and constitutions. " In the preface to the canons, the king says, — " Forasmuch as the said archbishops, &c having agreed upon certain canons, &c, to the end purposed, by us limited and prescribed unto them ; and have therefore offered and presented the same unto us, most humbly desiring us to give our royal assent unto their said canons, " &c. And furthermore, we do, by our said prerogative royal and supreme authority in causes ecciesias- tii-ul, establish these said canons. IV. What is enacted they cannot publish, without the queen's authority. By 32 Hen. VIII. cap. 26, it is enacted, " that all decrees and ordinances which shall be made and ordained by the archbishops, bishops, and doctors, and shall be published with the king's advice, and conjirmation by his letters-patent, " &c. But while the clergy cannot meet in convo- cation, or enact or publish any decree or law affecting the church, many most important things, bearing on and immediately affecting the church, are enacted by parliament, and that too without the church being once con- sulted, save that the few bishops in the lords may give their votes upon the subject as any other peers. Archbishop Wake, in his Au- thority of Christian Princes, says, that " the king has power without a convocation to make and publish such injunctions, as he shall think the necessities of the church to require, and to command the observance of them. " To prove this he gives a list of a great number of altera- tions and reformations in ecclesiastical mat- ters, which have been done entirely by private commissions, without the advice or consent of a convocation.* V. The queen has the selection and appoint- ment of all the bishops. " At every avoidance of a bishopric, the king may send to the dean and chapter his usual license to proceed to election, which is always to be accompanied with a letter missive from the king, containing the name of the person he would hate them to elect ; and if the dean and chapter delay the election above twelve days, the nomination is to devolve on the king, who may by letters pa- tent appoint such person as he please. This election or nomination, if it be of a bishop, must be signified by the king's letters patent to the archbishop, &c, requiring them to con- firm, invest, and consecrate the person so elect- ed, which they are bound to do immediately."-^ In Ireland, the farce of & forced election is not acted. " The 4th of 2 Eliz. c. 4, recited the delay, costs, and charges attending the election of archbishops and bishops, and therefore en- acted, that no such election should be made or conge d'elire granted, but that the queen and her successors, by letters-patent, or the governor of Ireland, by warrant, should col- late such persons as the queen or her succes- sors shall think meet. Persons so collated are • Pagei 136, 2*1, 381. + Blackstone's Com. book i. 176 ALL THE PRELATES APPOINTED BY THE QUEEN. required to be consecrated and invested, with- out any other election."* A distinguished episcopal clergyman, in an able article in the University Magazine for Dec. 1840, says: — " We may, if it so please us, rejoice in the pro- motion of Judas after Judas, and Caiaphas after Caiaphas, by state influence, exercised in their turn by Lord Woollyhead, or Lord Belzebub, until the bench of bishops becomes changed into a sanhedrim, by whom, if such a thing were possible, Christ, at his second coming, would be crucified again." . . . " In our humble judgment, unless a spirit somewhat similar to that which prevails in Scotland, begin to actuate our clergy — unless they begin to take some practical steps towards the removal of that enormous grievance, by which the high places in our church are so frequently, of late years, made the prey of the blockheads who disgrace, or the traitors who betray it, its doom is sealed. It neither can, nor ought much longer be suffered to cumber the earth." The writers of the ' Tracts for the Times,' the very highest of your churchmen, say, " The appointment of all our bishops, and in much the greater number of instances, of those who are to undertake the cure of souls, is vested in the hands of individuals, irrespon- sible and unpledged to any opinions or any con- duct; laymen, good or bad as it may happen, orthodox or heretic, faithful or infidel. The bishops, every one of them, are, as a matter of fact, appointed by the prime minister for the time being, who, since the repeal of the Test Act, may be an avowed Socinian, or even Atheist.'' 'f But, in addition to this, the go- vernment have the power of placing as many or as few bishops over the church as they please. I gave you the illustration furnished by ten having been annihilated a few years ago in Ireland. Your apology is that " with the con- sent of the Primate of Ireland, it was some years since arranged by the crown that several bishoprics should be consolidated." You say the primate consented. So I presume did Daniel O'Connell, and all the Romanists and Radicals in Ireland. The question is not, whether he consented, but whether his con- sent was necessary to the act. This you have not dared to affirm. The writers of ' Tracts for the Times ' say on this subject: — "The Legislature has lately taken upon itself to re- model the dioceses of Ireland; a proceeding which involves the appointment of certain bishops over certain clergy, and of certain clergy under certain bishops, without the church being consulted in the matter." Tract 2. But you say, it was an act not to abolish, but only to " consolidate" and "unite bishoprics." The Rev. R. M'Ghee, one of the church's most devoted ministers, and one whose autho- rity on such subjects is entitled to rather more weight than yours, declares this act to be " the annihilation of her episcopal offices by a set of laymen." He says, if we submit to this * Bishop Mant's History of the Church of Ireland, p. 263. + Tract, 59. bill, " let us call ourselves a religious club, instituted by the House of Commons, durante bene placito ; but as to an apostolical church, with apostolical office and authority, let us preserve enough of Christian honesty and truth no longer to usurp the title." You say, " the church herself was a party to the arrange- ment." Why r , sir, I know not how to account for this assertion. You must be aware that at present your church could not be a party to any arrangement. She has not been permitted to hold a convocation for the discussion or ar- rangement of any subject, whether trivial or important, since the reign of Anne, now more than 120 years. Nay, so far from being a party to any arrangement, she possesses not the power or privilege of the lowliest beggar in the land — the privilege of presenting even a petition. She is so completely in chains — so thoroughly a slave, that though her very r ex- istence were at stake — her life about to be taken, she could not, as a church, ask that it should be spared. You might — or any others might as individuals ; but you or they are not the church. Yet you tell us " I see no slavery in this. " But, let me ask Mr. M'Ghee whether " the church was a party to this arrangement." He says when the priest asks " where is y-our bishop ? Who banished him ? Has the church dispensed with his service, or was he not the mere puppet of the House of Commons, who could turn him off the stage when it pleased ? What will you answer? — I defy the talent of sophistry to refute him. " But unheeding the warning, you must try your talent at so- phistry, and you go on to illustrate the state of the church by a reference to the state of the army. You say, " it is open to the government to give the army a smaller number of com- manders, but this is very different from leaving the army without command. " Now, here, by this illustration you have given up the ques- tion. So far as the principle is concerned, — so far as right or authority is involved, it is beyond a doubt, that if the government have the power of reducing the number of com- manders at all, they have the power, if they only wished the destruction of the army, to remove all the commanders. I thank you for the illustration. If the government can re- move ten bishops, it has unquestionably the power to remove them all — Yet you see no slavery in all this ! VI. But, though the government can do away with bishops, the church herself cannot depose them even for " damnable and blas- phemous assertions, " without the consent of the queen. Bishop Burnet tells us that in the reign of Anne, the convocation found a man guilty on such a charge, but yet, before they could depose him, they must obtain the queen's authority. This she would not give, and there the matter ended. VII. With regard to the ecclesiastical courts, through which the church maintains her dis- cipline, such as it is, they also are but the creatures of the civil government. Nor is it BISHOPS COMPELLED TO INDUCT. 177 yet a year since a Roman Catholic in the House of Commons proposed to bring in a bill for reforming them. Bat yet you feel it to he " do slavery" for a protestant church to hare her discipline regulated by Roman Ca- tholics. VIII. In placing ministers over parishes you tell us" the crown may solicit (bow gentle!) a bishop to induct a minister into a parish. " And should be not choose to do so, from your statement of the matter we must infer that the man may just -walk about bis business. Put let us hear on this point some other testimony. I will give you that of some of your own clergy. Bishop Burnet says, " the grounds on which a presentation can be denied are sonar- row, that a bishop may be under great diffi- culties, who yet knows he cannot stand the. suit to which lie lies open., when he refuses to comply with the patron's nomination." * The writers of the ' Tracts for the Times ' say, " the laws of England, it must be confessed with sorrow, watched so jealously over the interests of these patrons, and so little over those of the church, that they compel the bi- shops, except in cases so outrageous that they can hardly ever occur, to accept at once of the person first presented to them, and to commit the cure of souls to him by the process of in- stitution." It is worth observing what judge Blackstone says upon this subject. " Upon the first delay," says he, " or refusal of the bishop to admit the clerk, the patron usually brings his writ of Quare impedit against the bishop for the. temporal injury done to his property in disturbing him in his presentation. The writ of Quare impedit commands the bi- shop to permit the plaintiff to present; and unless he does so, then that he appearin court to show his reason." What sort of reason the. court will be satisfied with, the judge informs us in another place. — " With regard to faith and morals," says he, " if the bishop alleges only in general that he is schismaticus inve- teratus, or objects a fault that is malum pro- hibitum merely, as haunting taverns, playing at unlawful garnet, or the like, (7 is not good cause of refusal. If the cause be some parti- cular hcresg alleged, the fact if denied shall be determined by a jury ! " f Here, then, it turns out that the prelates of the church are not the ultimate judges of a clergyman's soundness in the faith. lie may think the man unsound to the very core — deeply and dangerously heretical, yet must he submit to be controlled and directed as to his judgment of the man's doctrines, by a jury in a court of common law; that is, by a Dumber of farmers, or shopkeepers, or tradesmen, it may be of at least twelve different denomina- tions— Socinian and Calvinist — Anninian and Inlidel — Baptist and Papist — Prelatist and Presbyterian — Independent ami [rvinite— Quaker and Methodist To this motley group the doctrines of the accused person are sub mitted, and by their decision Blackstone de- clares the prelate must be guided. He says « Past. Care, p. 212. + Tract 30. if he refuse " the patron may recover ample satisfaction." As to the moral character of the persons presenting themselves for induction into pa- rishes, what worse could you well imagine than that of tipplers ami gamblers; yet are your prelates obliged to induct even BUCh. No mat ter how unfit the prelate may think the man, ' no matter how utterly unworthy id' the charge of souls, if be cannot prove before a jury something worse than tippling or gambling, he must induct him. O, sir, is it possible that a prelate who had any conscience, or any re- gard for immortal souls, would not feel it to be the deepest slavery to be obliged to place all the eternal interests of a whole parish in the hands of such a man ? True you tell me you can see " no slavery " in all this. I think there are few who will add ' neither can we.' IX. Another proof, which I shall adduce, of your church being manacled and managed, is the obligation her ministers are under to dispense sealing ordinances to those who give no evidence that they are the people of God, nay who are notoriously ungodly men. The initiatory ordinance is baptism. To this, pro- fessing believers and their children may be admitted, but there is not one word in the Bible authorising ministers of the gospel to baptize heathens, or those children both of whose parents are unbelievers. Directly in opposition to the instructions of God is the law of the church. The 14th canon enacts that " no minister shall refuse or delay to christen any child, according to the form of the book of common prayer, that is brought to the church to him on Sundays or holidays to he christened. If he shall refuse, he shall be suspended by the bishop of the diocess from his ministry by the space of three months." Bound hand and foot by this law, you stand at the baptismal font, and must administer Christ's holy ordinance to the adulterous off- spring of the vilest wretches who walk our streets. Here I gave you a case — that of a man who had banished his wife — who was openly living in adultery — who had been re- fused all ordinances in the presbyterian church — who had never been in the communion of the Church of England, and yet, whenever the children of his guilt and infamy were pre Sented to the minister of the Church of Eng- land, he was obliged to administer that holy ordinance, by which they were sealed as hav- ing been born under the covenant of God, and as members of his visible church. How did you meet this case --this evidence of your slavery? Did you, like a candid man, ac- knowledge, 'this is bad, very bad, but I hope the deep stain may not long rest on my church':' No — throughout your whole vo- lume your plan is to admit nothing to be Wrong, to defend every tiling. Well, what is your reply? Vou say, "I shall not noir enter upon your attack on the baptismal Service, because that subject more properlj belongs to the succeeding letter." In tlie next letter, then, may we expect to find your reply, proving that in this matter vou are 178 EPISCOPAL CLERGY COMPELLED at perfect liberty* I presume you expected that few of your readers would pause here to turn over to the place where the answer might be expected to be found, and you knew that ere they came to that place they would entirely have forgotten your proposed arrangement, nay, your implied promise. Hence, in turn- ing to examine the succeeding letter, we find there is not one syllable in it regarding your liberty or your slavery in this matter. Admi- rable manoeuvre to slur over a monstrous abuse, for which even sophistry could offer no defence ! X. The other sealing ordinance is the Lord's supper. You say that, when I was stating the remarks on this subject which are contained in my discourse, I " knew " they were not true. This is a charge, not against my literature, nor against my intellect, but agajmstmy honesty. A serious charge, truly; and one which I shall meet, not by asserting my innocence — for the man who would speak one lie would write another to cover it — but by proving to you the truth of what I stated. Indeed, sir, if I had made a mistake, you would have been yourself greatly to blame for it, as you told us in your sermons that the church may forbid the approach of notoriously evil livers — that her ministers may warn such, and give frequent addresses on the subject, but that " after this the matter lies between them and their God." But now you go farther, and I must follow you. To the assertion that a minister is obli- ged to dispense the sacrament to a notoriously evil liver, you give " a direct and unqualified contradiction." I quoted to you the lamenta- tions of Dr. Trapp, (an episcopalian), over "the restraints by which your discipline is shackled and fettered." Why did you not say, Dr. Trapp, you knew when you penned " this insulting sentence " it was not true ? I qou- ted to you a case given by the. Rev. Mr. Bar- wick, another episcopalian, of a clergyman who had been " thrown into a dungeon, where he icas very nigh perishing, for refusing the sa- crament to a strumpet." In place of charging me with falsehood, why did you not take up my witnesses? Surely here was a character vile enough to be refused — here a punishment heavy enough to bear out my assertion ; yet you pass over the case without one word in reference to it. Bishop Stillingfleet does not deny, when defending the church of England on this subject, that you are restrained by law ; but he says, it is a question whether, if a man will come, you are under greater obliga- tions to deny him the sacrament or to break the law.* The Rev. D. Aitchison, an episco- pal minister, says — " The civil power has step- ped forward and arrested the spiritual sword in its scabbard, and nothing is now left to the church, but annually to bewail, on the first day of Lent, the departure of that godly disci - pline, which in the primitive church was exer- cised." f But let me give you the act of par- liament, by which you are bound. _" The said * Unreasonableness of Separation, Part 3, 596. + The Truth with Boldness, 1841. p. 67. minister shall not, without a lawful cause, deny the same (the sacrament) to any person that will devoutly and humbly desire it." * Here, then, is an open door, a high-way to Christ's ordinances by acts of parliament. O, but you say the person must " devoutly and humbly desire it." And pray who could not, during the moment he expressed this desire, appear so devout and humble that no minister would have the right, on this ground, to refuse him ? You say, the minister may refuse if he can show " a lawful cause." But, sir, may I ask what would constitute a lawful cause? Sup- pose a man had when a child learned to re- peat the Lord's prayer, and creed, and cate- chism, and been confirmed; but this his stock of theology is long since forgotten, he may now be as ignorant, or nearly so, as the horse yuu drive, yet you have no authority to say, I can- not admit you without an examination of your knowledge to discern the Lord's body. His ignorance would not. be a lawful cause. A minister may not be refused induction to a paiish who is a tippler and gambler. May we not presume that a layman's supporting a similar character would not form a lawful cause to debar him from the Lord's supper? A man may be a notoriously evil liver, his character so vile that no respectable man would associ- ate with him, "notoriously" a protector of the infamous, excluded from the families of the virtuous, degraded in the eyes of the whole church, and the whole community, yet, if he come within the precincts of the parish church, and humbly and devoutly — which means, in his case, with his head bent down and his eyes tinned up — desire the sacrament, unless you are prepared to prove some overt act of iniqui- ty by the clearest testimony, you cannot, dare not refuse him. How common is it — how many instances might be produced, of females of such doubtful character that they are bani- shed from society — no virtuous lady would converse with them, or admit tbem into her house or to her table, yet you must admit them to the Lord's table, for you cannot prove a positive act of guilt against them. I pre- sume it was for refusing the solemn ordinance to some such characters that involved the excel- lent man mentioned by Barwick in his long- continued and great sufferings. It is only a few months since a most re- spectable and pious man told me that one of your own ministers had stated to him, that there was an individual in his congregation whom he had warned not to come to the sa- crament — entreated him not to come — had re- monstrated with him — had written to him, then had applied to some higher authority to prevent him approaching, but in vain, he did come, and could not be prevented. The min- ister "was obliged" to dispense to him the solemn ordinance. Indeed, you yourself ac- knowledge, indirectly, yet plainly, that in re- fusing the ordinance there is danger. You say, " if a man's palpable proved wickedness bear evidence against him — evidence this not of rumour, or hearsay, or gossip, but of noto- * lEliz. 6,c. 1. TO ADMINISTER SEALING ORDINANCES. 179 rietv — the evidence not of surmise but /act, I am then furnished with a proof on which I may art with safety" Yes, sir, you would require clear and strong proof before you bring your charge against any man, that he may be by law prevented; for thus says the act, " Be it farther enacted, that every voluntary promo- ter of office applying tn any ecclesiastical judge for the issuing a citation on account of any crime or immorality, &c, if upon hearing of the said cause it shall appear that such volun- tary promoter has failed in proving what in the said examination was alleged, such promo- ter shall be condemned in double costs.* In the Bame WOTS the case isgivyif of an action brought against a minister for refusing the sa- crament, and the jury found for the plaintiff and gave damages." Your friend, the writer of 'Essays on the Church,' speaks of" a good s\stem of discipline suffered to fall into disuse by reason of the difficulties attending its en- forcement in the Church of England." And indeed, no wonder it would fall into disuse, when you, who should exercise it, are thus paralysed by the insufferable yoke which you unceasingly bear. O sir, does not your high spirit rise and writhe within you, when you feel yourself thus cramped and controlled, in the discharge of purely spiritual duties, by the authority and the laws, not of Christ, the alone true head of the church, but of parliaments consisting of men of all shades of belief, from the lowest Socinian, and the most priest-ridden Romanist, up to the purest episcopalian. 9 I shall conclude my observations on this point, by quoting a few sentences from the great and good Richard Baxter, who was once a minister of the Church of England, who had been offered a bishopric, but who, rather than bear the yoke imposed on her clergy, submit- ted to lie many years in prison. He says, " 1. The minister hath in England no power to judge whom to baptize and whom not, but must baptize all that are offered, though the children of Jews, infidels, Turks, apostates." " 3. He hath no power to hinder any con- firmed or adult persons from the sacraments on account of the grossest ignorance or infidel- ity ; when multitudes among us know not what the sacrament is, nor know the essentials df the Christian faith." "4. He hath no power to bring any open Offender before him to call him to repentance. They may chouse to come to him, or to open their doors to him, or speak to him, it he come to them." " 8. He hath no power to forbear giving the Lord's supper to any one, how notorious an offender soever, unless he will prosecute him ai the bishop's court, nor then but for once ; so that if he pay his t'e< s and be absolved, then, though the minister know him to be ever mi had, //.' must give the sacrament the next time. And the prosecution is so odtOUS unit /'niilless, that I never knew any do it except against the nonconformists." * BulllDgbroke'l Ecclesiastical Law, ii. 12-V7. + Vol. i. 473. . " 10. He hath no power to forbear pronoun cing of all traitors, murderers, adulterers, per- jured, atheists, &C, that never protest repen- tance, at their burial, that God hath <>/ his mercy taken to himself the soul of this our dear bro- ther ; except the unbaptized, &c., aforesaid." * Such, sir, is the description of your slavery given by the man whom you yourself quote on your side of the controversy, and of whose times you give this commendation: they were " times when things were not taken loosely for granted, nor vindicated, right or wrong, at the dictate of mere prejudice." XI. The last evidence which I shall adduce to prove that liberty exists not in your church, is found in the fact, that the Christian people are deprived of the privilege of choosing their pastors and rulers, although this is granted them by Christ. I will not here pause to prove that he has invested them with this liberty, in- asmuch as the Scripture evidence for the fact has been by Mr. Killen fully discussed, and triumphantly established ,-f but there are cer- tain hearsay objections which you urge against the people being allowed the privilege. " I have heard, that in some instances a little knot of trustees have chosen the pastor among them- selves." You have taken care not to tell us where, or when, theso instances occurred. Eor my part, I have never heard of one such in- stance. If you refer to a late election in Deny, you havo been misinformed. It was not — it could not havo been by the trustees. A num- ber of persons, who had taken a great deal of trouble in building the church, had been for- mally " erected into a congregation " by the presbytery, and the election was by all the members of the congregation, not on the ground of their being trustees, or a committee, or hav- ing had trouble, but on this ground, that they were " the congregation" and were bound for the support of the minister if none others had ever joined them. You go on, " I have heard that many presbyteriaus, humbled and wearied by congregational contentions, have expressed a fervent wish that no such liberty was posses- sed by their people." You may have heard this, but from whom? I have heard that Sir Robert Reel was so " humbled and wearied " that he intended to poison the queen. But who, papist or protcstant.Tory or Radical, ever believed a word of it ;' You add, " I have heard that when a minister gives not the ex- pected satisfaction, the people branch oil' from his ministry, and stultify their own act by choosing another minister. " It may be true, and what a powerful reason against permitting men to have a choice of their own; if you per- mit it, they will, to a certainty, stultify them- selves. The queen must not choose counsel- lors — plaintiffs and defendants must not choose advocates — the sick must not choose physi- cians, nor masters choose servants, lest when the expected satsfaction is not gi\ en they stul- tify — make fools of themselves by choosing others — most satisfactory reason! Four pre- lates are in the happy position, that, having » Baxter on Episcopacy, p. 10. + See pp. 1 1 — !»>_ 180 THE PEOPLE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PRIVILEGES. once made a wrong choice, they cannot rectify the wrong — cannot stultify themselves. As to your people, so afraid are you that they would stultify themselves after discovering their minister did not give the expected satisfaction, that you treat them exactly as the masters did their sick slaves in Jamaica. They were obliged to receive whatever doctor was sent them, to take whatever medicines, no matter how long kept and fustg and bad, were given them ; and if they dared to murmur, the mas- ter, or the master driver, immediately answers with the utmost self-complacency in your own words, "the people are not nourished up neces- sarily and systematically in that most injurious of all frames of mind, the consequentially criti- cal — the hahit which induces (a slave) rather to sit in proud and self-opinionated judgment on (a doctor's) powers than to be humbly drinking in " (the excellent medicines offered him). This man, arguing stoutly for every part of the system of negro-slavery, asserts that the people have no right to complain, for there is not an unskilful doctor in all Jamaica; and even though a very rare instance could be found of one who knew not the best prescrip- tions to order — nay, who might sometimes order poison by mistake, still, as there had been a peculiar charm imparted to all these doctors at the time they were taking out their degree, it mattered little to the slaves whether medicines or poisons were administered; having come from a regularly ordained doctor they must cure This you say is only a caricature, if intended to describe the Church of England. So I am persuaded many a pious episcopalian will say, but so will not say the advocates of apostolical succession. Let us hear the elo- quent Melville of London. " Though there be a great deal preached in which you cannot recognise the voice of the Saviour, and though the sacraments be administered by hands which seem impure enough to sully their sanctity, yet do we venture to assert that no man who keeps Christ steadfastly hi view as the minister of the true tabernacle, will ever fail to derive profit from a sermon and strength from a com- munion The ordained preacher is a messenger, a messenger from the God of the whole earth. His mental capacity may be weak — that is nothing. His speech may be con- temptible— that is nothing. His knowledge may be circumscribed, we say not— that is nothing; but we say that whatever the man's qualifi- cations, he should rest upon his office We are certain, as upon a truth which to deny is to assult the foundations of Christianity, that the chief minister is so mindful of his office, that every man who listens in faith, expecting a message from above, shall be addressed through the mouth, ay, even through the mis- takes and errors of the inferior If tuheresoever the minister is deficient and un- taught, so that, his sermons exhibit a wrong sys- tem of doctrine, you will not allow that Christ's church may be profited by the ordinance of prcachinc/,yoii clearly argue that the Redeemer has given up his office We behold the true followers of Christ enabled to find food in pastures which seem barren, and water where the fountains are dry When every thing seems against them, so that on a carnal calcu- lation you would suppose the services of the church stripped of all efficacy, then by acting faith on the head of the ministry, they are in- structed and nourished ; though in the main the given lesson be falsehood and the proffered sustenance little better than poison."* So then it matters not what your prelatically ordained doctors may be — no matter how weak — how contemptible — how unholy — no matter what doctiines they preach — what errors they in- culcate — what poisons they administer — the people in your churches are not only safe from all harm, but are sure to be healed of all dis- eases. Happy, thrice happy people ! Who would no£be a slave on such terms? But we doubt whether the slave-driver, armed though he were with his whip and all authority, could convince the people of Jamaica of the truth of his medical theory ; and we are per- suaded that our presbyterian people would re- quire both yours, and Melville's eloquence, to induce them to give up their Christian privi- leges, in the hope that the prelate, having chosen a pastor for them, his ministrations of whatever character must prove effectual, and that they would never again be in the least danger of " stultifying " themselves, or " culti- vating a fastidious temper, or revelling in the unhallowed exercise of liberty falsely so called." From these dreadful evils your people are de- livered, but delivered only through the work- ing of a system which hands them over to the son, or nephew, or heir of the purchaser of a parish presentation, just as slaves in the west, or serfs in the east, are handed over to a pur- chaser along with the estate which he has bought. That these are not mere assertions, let me quote to you two advertisements ex- tracted by Howit out of the St. James's Chronicle : "Church Preferment. Wanted to pur- chase the advowson or next presentation, with prospect of early possession, to a living of from £200 to £500 per annum, in an agree- able neighbourhood, within a day's journey of London. Population not exceeding 1000. A good genteel house, or which might be easily rendered so, is indispensable. The county of Kent or Surrey would be preferred. Address, stating particulars, to the Rev. S. T., care of Messrs. Smyth, Elder, & Co., Book- sellers, Cornhill, London." " To the Church. From £4000 to £6000 ready to be advanced in the purchase of a next presentation, or next presentation and advow- son of adequate value, with the prospect of immediate possession. Situations must be upland, and from thirty to a hundred miles from London, with a good residence. All letters containing every information, to be ad- dressed postpaid to Messrs. Burfoot, solicitors, Temple, London." The same person may have two or three parishes, place a curate to * Sermons by Melville, vol. i. p. 48. ADVANTAGES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. 181 starve in each, and with the income gathered from them live himself on the continent. Bur- net says, " Here is an estate (a parish) to be conveyed to a person, if he can but get through those s!i, while he gives it as his opinion lhat Laud was unjustly charged with forging the obnoxious clause of the 20th Article, yet places ii almost beyond a doubt that it was sur- reptitiously added by sume one. He inclines t.i the opinion, that it was interpolated by or- der of queen Elizabeth. The following is his testimony, and it is most interesting: " From (he preceding statement ami annexed copies it is evident that the disputed clause was not in the Articles as they passed the convocation in 1562, for we have before us the .MSS. signed by the archbishops and bishops, and it appears lhat no alteration of the articles took place in the lower house. Rut this clause is found in the first printed copy after the convocation of 1562, namely, in that of Reginald Wolfe, pub- lished by royal authority in lo*>5. Surely, then, it can be no difficult matter to ascertain, or at least conjecture, by whose means this clause was inserted between the passing of the articles in convocation and their first publica- tion. Let us trace the progress of them dur- ing this period. A fair copy, or the copy with the signatures of both houses would be sent to the council hoard for the approbation of her majesty, and for the purpose of attaching the great seal, this being necessary, according to the Act of submission, to any deed of convoca- tion. The copy remained in the hands of her majesty about a, twelvemonth, and the disputed clause, there can be little doubt, was added during this period by the queen, or by the coun- cil ii( hri suggestion, " It must be remembered, that at this time Elizabeth was endeavouring, by every means in her power, to establish her prerogative in all matters connected with the church. ' The church hath power to decree rites and cere- monies and authority in matters of faith,' was, according to the notions then entertained by the queen, declaring her majesty not only pro- tector, but, the sole director likewise of her people'.-- faith. And this was quite in unison with the notions of those who had devised and passed the late Act ol supremacy. " To the Latin edition of Wolfe, in which the clause first appeared, is the following re- markable addition: 'To all which Articles, being first, by her carefully read and examined, the most Serene Princess Elizabeth, by the of God, Queen of England, France, and I. eland, Defender of the Faith, affixed her royal seal.' — 'J'his decimation is nut appended tu mi:/ other edition." * Dr. Lamb then, after adducing a curious and very instructive instance of the queen and her council tampering with another of the arli- i.imely, the 29th, thus strongly corrobo- rating the suspicion that they had dealt un- fairly with the 20th, make.- the following * Quibua omnibus articulia, icrenissima priuceps Elizabeth, l).-i gratia, AngliB, FranciM, ft Hibrroiee regiua, Pidei Delenrur, (sc) per tcipxam, dtligrnler prtna lectis et rxarainatis, Kej;iuni luum usentum prebuit 194 CHURCH POWER. -JEWISH RITUAL. remarkable observation : " Had tbe bishops ever approved of the clause after it had been prefixed to the 20th article in 1563, they would certainly have adopted it in the convocation of 1571. But it docs not appear in the manuscript they signed, or in either the Latin or English copy edited under the superintendence of bishop Jewel in that year." This last remark I con sider singularly important, in fact, quite con- clusive. Such indeed is the force of the whole statement, that I candidly acknowledge I have become a convert to the Dr.'s opinion, and profess myself indebted to him in this matter for much valuable " second-hand information." Nor will you, I am sure, be disposed to impugn his testimony, for he is not a professor in any such despicable colleges as Belfast or Aber- deen, but a "learned churchman" from the University of Cambridge. I frankly own, therefore, that I am now willing to absolve archbishop Laud of the guilt of forging the disputed clause. His memory is sufficiently odious without it. It now appears that the clause was foisted in by queen Elizabeth, in order to suit her arbitrary views, not only with- out the consent, but contrary to the wishes of the then bishops and clergy.*— Mark here, sir, the utter slavery of your church. Her recognised head, the sovereign of the country, adds to her laws an unscriptural enactment; the convocation are unwilling to sanction, but dare not openly condemn the interference. Their articles are vitiated at the will of a des- pot, and the hierarchy meet and separate in sullen discontent, but without a murmur of disapproval. But this is by the way. Let me askyounow, sir, will you still abide by your positive assertion that the disputed clause is " in all the copies of the times of Eliza- beth," " that the copies of 1562 contain the article as we have it " ? You hear Dr. Lamb adduce direct documentary evidence that the clause was not in the articles as they passed the convocation in 1562, that it never appear- ed till 1563. How these jarring opinions shall be reconciled, and these conflicting testi- monies adjusted between two " learned church- men," I leave it to your ingenuity to explain. I proceed now to examine your defence of the power claimed by the Church of England to decree rites and ceremonies. You introduce the subject by charging me with misrepresent- ing the 20th Article by suppressing the latter clause. This, sir, would have been a very foolish expedient had I resorted to it, for the 20th Article of your church is, unhappily, too well known, from its baneful effects, to leave it possible that such an artifice could escape undetected. But I did not misrepresent the article, and I am sorry to be obliged to add, that you knew that I did not. I stated at the fifth page of my discourse that the claim put forth in the article was, that the church "hath power *This opinion is held by others as well ashy Dr.Lamb. A late writer in the ' Dunlin Christian Kxaminer,' (See No. tor November last,) nmler the well-known signa- tuie R.D., says, that it "is uncertain how the clause came into the Article," but that the Dr.'s conjecture is •'piobabte." He ailds, " The subject is worth attention at the present time." — There is not a doubt of it. to decree rites and ceremonies," and I care- fully added, a few pages farther on, that she thus limited her claim — " it is not lawful for her to ordain anything contrary to God's word written." * And yet with this plain fact star- ing you in the face, you have the hardihood, in the very outset of your letter, to accuse me of " dexterity and misrepresentation " as citing only the first clause. Why, sir, the misrepre- sentation is all your own. . I cannot indeed accord it the praise of dexterity. It is a sim- ple illustration of that too common figure, saying the thing which is not. I am not aware that there is any name for this in the books of logic — I leave it to you to say what it should be called in the books of veracity. In trying to prove that the church should now have vested in her a power to or- dain ceremonies, you recur to your old argu- ment taken from the history of the Jewish church. You remind me that many important additions were made to its ritual long after the time of Moses. I have already freely admit- ted this, but maintained at first, and still main- tain, that these, where lawful, were introduced by divine authority. This you positively deny, and call upon me for the proof of my allega- tion. I might here content myself with say- ing that the onus probandi fairly lies with you. Your church has taken it upon her to make a number of very important additions to the commanded worship of God, and appeals to the conduct of the ancient Jewish church as a precedent. Let her show, then that that pre- cedent will fully bear her out in her innova- tions. Let her show beyond a doubt, that the additions which, in process of time, were made to the Mosaic ritual, were not introduced by inspired men, acting under a divine warrant. But I waive this plea, and am ready to show that the alterations introduced into the worship of ancient Israel, in so far as these were re- cognised as lawful, did not derive their origin from mere human authority. You specify a number of these, and seem to lay particular stress upon the synagogue service, the feast of Purim, the feast of dedication, and John's bap- tism. Now, sir, I shall take up these in their order. And first, as to the building of the sy- nagogues, and the conducting of their peculiar services. You ask me, where in the Old Tes- tament is the divine warrant for this new form of worship ? You tell me that we may search from Genesis to Malachi and find none. I might here retort on you a single parallel ques- tion, which will show you the futility of your reasoning. I might ask you, where in the New Testament can you point out the express warrant for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week ? We may search from the beginning of Matthew to the end of the Revelations, and we shall find none. As well, therefore, might I deny that there is or should be such a change of the day, as you deny, for a similar reason, that the synagogue service was appointed by divine authority. Again, I would remark, that even were it the fact that the synagogue service was ordained * Presbyterianism Defended, p. 218. CHURCH POWER— SYNAGOGUES. FEAST OF PURIM. 195 by church power alone, the establishment of such a fact would serve you nothing; for it arose, it is admitted on all hands, out of a case of urgent necessity. It was designed for the instruction and edification of the people at a time when it was impossible they could come, each Sabbath day, to the reading and expound- ing of the law in the place which God had chosen. There was an absolute necessity for its introduction. Is this the case with your ceremonies:' Is kneeling at the sacrament, or the sign of the cross, indispensable ? Would the people of God be heavy losers if they were for ever abolished '.' You will see that the cases are not parallel. But I proceed to observe that there is every reason to believe that the synagogues were of divine institution. First, we have a strong pre- sumption of this in God's appointment of the tabernacle and temple service. All the ordi- nances of the tabernacle were arranged by him with the utmost exactness and particu- larity. Afterwards, in the days of David, we find him by his Holy Spirit in the prophets (as we read in 1 Chron. ix. '22, and xxviii. 1 1,) superintending the erection of the temple, and regulating all the parts of its worship. Now, is it to be imagined that the synagogue service, much more important than many things thus expressly enjoined respecting the tabernacle and temple, was entirely without sacred war- rant, and that David, who was an eminent typo of Christ, especially in this point, his royal ordering of the house and church of God, was wholly unconcerned in its introduction ? The supposition is unreasonable. But, secondly, to conceive that the synagogues were estab- lished by human authority would be a reflec- tion on God's singular providence over his people Israel. Let us remember that his government of them was a theocracy, till the days of Saul, — that the Urim and Thummim, and holy oracles of God, were constantly pre- served among them, — that, in almost all the periods of their history, they had the assistance of prophets divinely inspired; let us bear all this in mind, and we will be slow to believe that an institution so important and needful as the synagogue could have been allowed to ori- ginate in mere human caprice, or be continued by mere human authority. All this, I admit, is but a presumptive ar- gument, though undoubtedly of the strongest kind. There are other considerations, how- ever, which, in my opinion, strengthen it even into certainty. Among these, I would refer to the fact of the children of Levi being dis- persed throughout the tribes, and of Moms being instructed to Mess them, and set before them as their special duty that they were to " teach Jacob God's judgments and Israel his law."* Again, I would call attention to the remarkable circumstaneeof David's appointing 4400 of the Efebronitet throughout all Israel " in all the business of the Lord, and for e\ ery matter pertaining to God as well as to the ;il' fairs of the king.")- May ire not conclude * Deut. xxxiii, 10. + 1 Chron. xxvi, 30-U2. that the establishment of synagogues would be regarded as among the " matters pertaining to God!'" But to place the question beyond all reasonable doubt, I would call upon you to mark the language of the Holy Ghost in the seventy-fourth Psalm, eighth verse, " They have burnt up all the synagogues of God in the land." The synagogues of God' I ask you, sir, can you believe that the Divine Spirit would have instructed Asaph deliberately and designedly to use that expression, if syna- gogues, and all the services connected there- with, had been mere human inventions? You may believe this. Writers of jour school would probably remain incredulous on this or any point, unless, in addition to the assertions of Scripture, we could bring forward a multi- tudinous array of testimonies from the fathers. With presbyterians, however, it is different. We regard the authority of Scripture as para- mount. A single text of the Bible, however casually to all appearance introduced, is to us on any subject " confirmation strong. " I believe then, sir, that the considerations adduced * warrant me in assuming the divine origin of the synagogue services as not merely a strong probability, but as an unquestionable truth. Were all the presumptive arguments which I have mentioned without weight, the divinely inspired phrase "synagogues of God," would ever remain a testimony against the theory that they are mere " commandments of men. " Let me now attend to the feast of Puriin. You regard the introduction of this as aa ex- ample of the ecclesiastical power assumed by the Israelilish church, and therefore as a pre- cedent for your church's ceremonies. The first remark 'which I would make with regard to this feast is, that it was appointed to be kept In/ lite consent of the whole congregation of Is rael, and that there was a new and special oc- casion for it. Is this the case with your cere- monies? Were the people consulted with re- spect to their introduction, or is there any urgent necessity for them ? Arc they not needlessly imposed now on multitudes who in their consciences condemn them ? The feast of Purim you will see is not a case in point. Again, there has been a great diversity of opinion as to the nature of this feast. Many learned men are agreed that it was a civil rather than a sacred institution. It is called a "day of feasting and sending portions one to another, "f We read of do acts of worship which were celebrated during its continuance, for the expressions in the close of the thirty- first verse refer not to the days of Purim, but to times long past, in which, by fasting and prayer, the people had obtained deliverance. From all this, it appears beyond a doubt to * I do not deem it necessary to dwell here on this (object— the warrant fbr the introd action ol synagtHrnea. 'I lie reader will 11 ml il already fully discussed in Letter iii,p. 14.1, Independently ol what is stated abo»e, abun- dant evidence is there tarnished lh.it they were estab- lished l>> divine authority. + Esther, ix, 19-22- 196 CHURCH POWER --FEAST OF FURIM. OF DEDICATION. have been regarded and used as an occasion of national rejoicing and festivity. But passing on from this, I have farther to observe, that whatever may have been the true nature of this feast, there is evidence that there was more than ordinary warrant for its appoint- ment. It was instituted by Mordecai, who is generally allowed tohavebeenaprophetofGod. There is internal evidence in the book of Esther itself, of his having been its divinely- inspired author, anil of his having, conjointly with the queen, ordained this festival. * This evidence was such as to satisfy the mind of the learned Hospinian. " We shall not much err, " says he, " if we affirm that this feast was enjoined by Mordecai and Esther through the special direction of the Holy Spirit, "f Simi- lar is the testimony borne by Dr. M'Crie in his admirable ' Lectures on the Book of Esther.' These I would earnestly commend to your pe- rusal. In delivering his views concerning this feast of Purim, lie shows, you will find, most satisfactorily, that Mordecai in sanctioning its institution acted as a prophet of the Most High ; and you cannot fail to be edified by his concluding remarks, in which he takes ad- vantage of the subject to point out, in a variety of judicious reflections, the utter unlawfulness and inexpediency of the holy-days of the Church of England. I shall now proceed to notice the feast of Dedication, the appointment of which you have quoted as another instance of Jewish church regulation. And here, I believe there is good ground for affirming, that the intro- duction of this festival by Judas Maccabeus was altogether unwarrantable. That it was unauthorised maybe inferred from this single circumstance, that there was no festival, not so much as of a single day, instituted to com- memorate the dedication of the first temple under Solomon, or of the second, after the Babylonish captivity. Is it to be conceived, then, that if the Spirit that dwelt in Solomon, and inspired the prophets after the captivity, allowed the dedication of the first and second temples to remain without the annual com- memoration of a feast, even of a single day, he would authorise Judas, so far inferior to these eminent servants of God, to set apart a feast of eight days, to commemorate, not the dedication of the whole temple, but only of the renewal of the altar, a part of the temple? The idea cannot be tolerated for an instant, more especially as it has been shown by those who have thoroughly examined the subject, such as Tremellius J and others, that this feast was observed by the Jews, with a multitude of rites invented by the Pharisees, altogether childish and superstitious. But you tell me that Christ attended at the feast of Dedication. And you immediately exclaim, with all the confidence of ignorance, — '• Beyond controversy, this was an assenting on his part to the propiiety of this institution." Take patience, good sir, and before you thus * Esther, iv. 13, U ; ix, 20, 21, 00-32. t De Orig. Festor. cap. 2. t Aniiot. on John.x. 22. " fling at my head conviction in a lump," be kind enough to prove to me that that solemnity mentioned in the 10th chapter of John, at which Christ attended, was really the feast of Dedication established by Judas. Bullinger, * you ought to know, considers the point doubt ful ; and Maldonalus declares, that " the opinion which applies that passage, to the dedication by Judas Maccabeus hath fewest authors, "f You, I am aware, have no doubt upon the subject, but learned men, you see, have hesitated. But even supposing it had been the feast which Judas unauthorisedly introduced, I main- tain, that Christ's being present when it was celebrated is no proof of its propriety. It would appear from the circumstances of the sacred narrative, that our Lord had come up to Jerusalem to be present at the feast of ta- bernacles. He afterwards waited there for a considerable time, probably in order that he might have an opportunity of preaching the gospel to great numbers of people gathered together. He walked, we are told, in Solomon's porch, because it was there the Jews chicfly r resorted; and also (as Lightfoot remarks) be- cause, as it was now winter, " he could there get and keep himself warm." The whole strain of the narrative makes it evident, that our Lord appeared at this feast, not for the express purpose of attending it or sanctioning it, but mainly because he had there a favourable op- portunity of declaring his message to the peo- ple. In the same way we find the apostle Paid, as is noted by Calvin, j expressing his desire to be present at certain Jewish feasts, not from any respect he had for them, or be- cause of any honour that he intended to pay them, but simply because greater multitudes would be assembled at such festivals than at other seasons of the year. The feast of Dedi- cation, then, will afford you no precedent for your ceremonies. It was beyond a question introduced at first, and continued afterwards, without any sanction from God. The only other one of your examples to which I shall advert is baptism, and the reasuii I confine myself to these four which I have named, is simply because, by referring to them twice, you seem to attach particular importance to them. Baptism, then, you tell me was an innova- tion in the Jewish church, and you put to me the question, " Was it like a condemnation of the introduction of baptism for Christ to submit to be baptized?" Now, it is not necessary for me to enter into any discussion of the question respecting the alleged baptizing of proselytes among the Jews. I shall content myself -with this single remark, that no notice is made of such baptisms in the works of Philo or Josephus, and that there is not the slightest evidence that any such practice § existed in the time of our Saviour. It is, indeed, in it- * In Jo. x, 22. + Comm. ibid. * Calv. in Act, xviii. 2!. i Mr. Bovd says confidently ('Letters,' p. 254), "We find that baptism w«s then aci ministered "— (lie means under the Jewish economy.) Let him prove that. A CHURCH POWER.— BAPTISM. MOSES AND CHRIST. U)7 self incredible, that our Lord, who so frequently inveighed against all vain traditions, would adopt from the corrupt church of Judea a superstitious practice, and embody it in one of the most solemn institutions of his own re- ligion. It is not necessary for me, however, as I have said, to discuss this question now, for you have yourself limited the enquiry to the baptism of John. You ask, did not Christ abstain from condemning this rite hy submit- ting to it ? taking for granted, of course, by your question, that it was introduced by mere human authority. Now, sir, I would ask in return, is it possible yen can doubt that there was a divine warrant for John's baptism ? Is it possible you can believe that this divinely- inspired messenger performed the act of bap- tizing the Lord Jesus Christ without any sanc- tion from Heaven ? Am I to understand you as teaching a protestant community such doctrine as this — that the Sun of God, on that mysterious and august occasion, when the Holy Ghost descended on him like a dove, and the Father acknowledged him from out the excellent glory, was, amid all these dread solemnities, conse- crated to his office by a mere humanly-invent- ed ceremony. Really, sir, this is too bad. Poor as is the estimate I had formed of your theological acquirements, I must say I was not prepared for this. What ! but I spare you. Read your bible, and in John's Gospel, i, 33, you will find these words used by John himself: "He that sent me l<> baptize with water, the same said unto me," &c. The Bap- tist, sir, you see, had a commission from Hea- ven to "baptize with water," and when our blessed Saviour recognised that ordinance by submitting to it, he recognised an ordinance of God, and not a '' commandment of men." I have thus adverted to all the examples of any importance which you have quoted from the Jewish church, and shown you that they afford no precedent whatever for your church's imposition of unscriptural ceremonies. Before I pass on from this subject, let me submit to you the following consideration. Wo find a comparison instituted, in Scripture, between Moses' fidelity as a servant over the house of God, and Christ's fidelity as a Son over his own house. In the parallel drawn between them by the inspired apostle,* the superiority of Christ is strongly asserted. And win n in did his superior faithfulness appear!' One important department, undoubtedly, in which it Mas exhibited, was in ordering aright the wor ship oi' God — in keeping it " pure and entire, " as he had appointed in his word. Moses, it is admitted, was faithful to the commission he much more accomplished theologian than he, haa re- corded a directly opposite opinion. "'Hie first notice, says Di Dick.oflhe baptism of proselytes is round in the Mi ili n. i and Qemara; of wh'icb, the one was composed, at (he earliest date, in the second century, although learned men, In general, bring ii much further down, ami the latter is so late as the seventh. Iherr is no evidt net ili.it the practice existed in the lime ol Christ, and il is much more 1 1 k<- ! > that anion.' theJr.V, j, n was mi acknon ledgi .1 imitation of his institution, than that be u .1 > indebted foi if, to them."— Lectures on i neology, vol. iv. p. 150. * Ileb. iii. received in this matter; he arranged every thing pertaining to the tabernacle service with the Utmost exactness, permitting nothing to be introduced into it or added to it which God had not authorised. Now, I ask, if Moses was faithful to his commission, is not Christ mare faithful to his? And how can this be the case, il', while the purify and integrity of divine wor- ship were jealously guarded and successful!) maintained under the ancient economy, that worship be now disfigured by the addition of a mass of uncommanded ordinances ? No, sir, if the Church of England, in her present ar- rangements for the worship of God, be indeed a type and model of the true /ion, and if, as we know, she has grievously corrupted that wor- ship by the introduction of many new and un- authorised ceremonies, then 1 say it is impos- sible to see the force of the apostle's reasoning, or to admit, for a moment, that the faithfulness of Moses the servant has been eclipsed by the superior fidelity of Jesus the Son. And mark, I pray you, how the principle upon which this argument is based was used and insisted on by the illustrious Scottish reformer. " Before the comming of his w el- beloved Sonne in the flesh," says John Knox, " severely he punish- ed all such as durst interpriseto alter or change his ceremonies and statutes, as in Saul, Lzzias, Nadab, Abihu, is to be read. And will he now, after that he hath opened his counsell to the world by his only Sonne whom he commandeth to be heard, and after that by his Holy Spirit, speaking by his apostles, he hath established the religion in which he will his true worship- pers abide unto the end, will he now, I say, admitt men's inventions in the matter of reli- gion!' For this Sentence he pronounceth, 'Not that which seeineth good in thine eyes shalt thou do 'to the Lord thy God, but that which the Lord thy God commanded thee, that do thou.' Add nothing unto it, diminish nothing from it, which sealing up his New Tes- tament he repeateth in these words, ' that which ye have hold till I come.'"* &C \our second general plea for (he power as- sumed by the Chinch of England to decree ceremonies is taken from the pel uliar character <>j the Christian church, Il is not an exclusive, but a widely extending society, and therefore, yon say, it should have a liberty to frame and impose religious rites. You havt referred, in Support of your argument, to the decree of the apostles at Jerusalem, commanding the con- verts there to abstain from " things strangled, and from blood." 1 observe that you have not attempted to controvert the reasoning bj which, in my discourse, I invalidated this argument ^ ou utterly misrepresent what I then said, for the simple reason, that had you fairly stated my words, you would not have known what to reply. Any one who compares my language in • Presbj terianism Defended ' with your ver sion of ii v.ill at oil,,- -..■ f,.,.. I shall take th trouble to repeat, i i a somewhat more de- form, the principle which 1 there advan- ced. It \. as this. The decree of the apostolical * Letter to the Regent of Scotland. 198 CHURCH POWER.— COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM. council in the case referred to was a just and scriptural one, and therefore it was right to enact it. It enjoined a practice which circum- stances had rendered necessary for the avoid- ance of public scandal. The obligation of the church to obey in this matter arose not from the canon issued by the apostles, but from the reason on which that canon was grounded. That reason was the necessity of the case. There was an absolute necessity that the Chris- tian converts should abstain from things stran- gled and from blood, that they might maintain the law of charity, and avoid giving offence to the weak — a necessity, be it observed, existing an- tecedently to the issuing of the decree, and which would have continued in full force though the decree had never been promulgated. It will easily be seen, therefore, that this is by no means an instance of the church, in the ex- ercise of her alleged power, converting what was before a matter of indifference into a matter of obligation, but rather of her claim- ing from her members the observance of a positive known duty — of her enjoining on them a practice which the law of Christ and the ne- cessity of circumstances required her to en join. And this obvious view of the subject is that which Calvin has taken. "To abstain was necessary," says he, " for eschewing of' scandall, whether the apostles had enjoined abstinence or not." * How then, sir, I ask you, will this apostoli- cal decree, founded on these principles, justify your church in enacting her multiplied cere- monies ? Will you presume to tell me that there is any necessity for them, a necessity existing previously to their imposition, and which would continue if they were abolished? Will you say that any law of the Redeemer constrains us, even independently of the en- actment of the church, to countenance super- stition by using the sign of the cross, or to sym- bolise with idolaters by kneeling at the com- munion? Why, sir, I think that even you will hardly have the effrontery to insinuate this. And if not, I tell you it is absurd to refer us again and again to the decree at Jerusalem, as if it were a justifying precedent fur the Church of England. Prove to us first that the cases are parallel,and then we shall acknowledge the correctness of the inferences you deduce. You attempt, I perceive, to implicate the Church of Scotland in a recognition of the unscriptural principles held by your own on this subject. You say your view is the " com mon-sense one taken by the Scottish Confes- sion of Faith ; " and then you quote the fol- lowing language ; " not that we think that any policy, or an order in ceremonies, can be ap- pointed for all times, ages, and places ; for as ceremonies such as men have devised are but temporal, so may and ought they to be changed when they rather foster superstition than edify the church ;" and you add, " it will thus be seen that the Church of Scotland objects not to ceremonies," &c. Now, sir, will you permit me to ask, is this verily and indeed the testi • * Calv. Com. in hunc locum. moiiy of the Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland? Are these words which you have quoted above indeed contained in its 20th Article, as you insinuate ? Did you not know, when you penned and printed these words, that not one iota of them is to be found there ? And what kind of conduct, I ask you, is it in a minister of the gospel deliberately to palm upon the world, as the accredited testi- mony of a Christian church, language which is not to be found in her authorised standards? * In what light does this exhibit your candour as a controversialist, and your integrity as a man ? I will not, sir, descend so far as to characterise this wretched artifice as it de- serves; but I will say, to quote your own words, " that the cause must be desperate that requires such tactics to uphold it." I will tell you, sir, what the "common-sense view" taken by our Confession is, in reality, on this subject. You will find it (and I have no doubt you will be greatly astonished to do so) in the 20th Article ! Here it is, and may the com- mon sense which distinguishes it have its due influence upon your mind ! " God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men ichich are in any thing contrary to his ivord, or beside it, in matters of faith and tcorship ; so that to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience, and the re- quiring an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." I proceed now to examine the third ground on which you rest the power claimed by your church to ordain religious rites. Your argu- ment is, that Scripture lays down some general principles on this subject without entering into details, and therefore, you infer, the Church of England is warranted to invent a multitude of ceremonies, and impose them on all her mem- bers. Now, let us see how you attempt to sustain this conclusion at which you arrive. By appealing to that oft- quoted passage in Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, "let all tilings be done decently and in order." This is your main strong-hold. I am much mis- taken if I do not speedily dislodge you from it. Before entering on its examination, I would just premise, as a circumstance worthy of note, that Romanists appeal to this very precept of Paul to vindicate all the ceremonies of their apostate church. Bellarmine and others tell us that they are all comprehended under the " decency " and " order " which the apostle enjoins. f And if the argument be good for any thing, it will just as clearly establish the lawfulness of the ceremonies of the Church of Rome, as those of the Church of England. But we shall show that it will authorise neither the one nor the other. * See Ulene Tekcl for a thorough exposure of Mr. B.'s dishonesty in not merely omitting all reference to the Chinch of Scotland's acknowledged standard of doctrine (the Westminster Confession), but in adroitly representing the language of the old Confession ot 15(30, as exhibiting hex present testimony on the subject above referred to. + See Ccllarm. de effect, sacr. lib. ii. CHURCH POWER.— DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTLES. 199 What, let us ask, is the apostle referring to when he commands that all things should be done decently and in order? What are the " all things " here mentioned ? Why, all the appointed duties of God's worship of which he has just been speaking, such as ringing, pro- phesying, praying, preaching, administering sacraments, &c. Let these, the apostle inti- mates, and all the other acts of God's worship, be ever performed in a decent and orderly manner. Let such a seemly and becoming behaviour be exhibited in the church of God as is commonly manifested even in civil as- semblies, in the ordinary usages of society. Such is unquestionably the plain meaning of the apostle. The order and decency which he here prescribes are not, as it has been termed, propria reliyionis. They consist not in the institution or use of new rites, but only in the proper placing and using of rites which had been instituted before. Accordingly, presbyterians, in all their sim- ple arrangements for the worship of God, have been careful to keep strictly by the spirit and letter of the apostle's command. And all the instances which you have culled out and speci- fied are just so many illustrations of their scrupulous adherence to it. They conduct public worship at a particular time and place, because great disorder would else ensue ; they administer the communion in a certain way, for example, with uncovered heads and solemn gestures, fortius behaviour is decent and such as they would observe even in civil assem- blies ; they occasionally use a certain attire in the pulpit, because they deem it becoming, yet they do not place any virtue in it or insist on its adoption ; they frequently appoint particu- lar times to be kept holy, not because they imagine there is any peculiar sacredness in these, so as that one time would not suit as well as another, but because they conceive there is some call of Providence urging them to it, and because the selecting and announcing of one particular day for worship tends to pre- vent disorder in the assembling of the church; and lastly, they give tokens to communicants, not because they consider the said token or ticket to be essential, or that it possesses any sacred significance, or presents any motive to godliness, but simply because without some such expedient there would be great irregu- larity in the approach to the Lord's table, and such confusion would arise as would be in- decent in the church of God. You will per- ceive, sir, that all these circumstantials of di- vine worship are properly comprehended under the apostolic rule, "let all things be done de- cently and in order." But mark now, I pray you, the distinction between these arrange- ments and your church's ceremonies. In re- garding them as identical, (and your whole rea s onin g proceeds on this unwarranted as- sumption,) yon have completely confounded things that differ. In the rites lit' tin' Church of England there are elements involved which utterly exclude them from the category laid down by the apostle. One of the principal of these is, that they are used by her as sacred mystical signs. She regards them and has or- dained them as tokens of spiritual benefits, as tending to admonish men of their duty, and as containing incentives to piety. This can- not be denied. To what end, for example, has she ordained the rite of confirmation? Is it not to be a mean of " certifying to those who receive it God's favour and good-will to- wards them ? " To what end again has she appointed kneeling, and made it so essential that none shall receive the sacrament without it? Why, to be a sign of our "humble and grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ." To what end has she rendered it imperative on all her ministers to wear the surplice, — the degrading badge of Romish su- perstition ? Does she not attach a " special signification" to it? And lastly, for what purpose has she required that baptism shall never be celebrated without the use of the sign of the cross ? Is it not because in her view this rite teaches " momentous truths" — to use the words of a great modern divine,* contains under it the "inculcation of a duty and the elements of a doctrine ? " Here then, sir, we perceive, the ceremonies of the English estab- lishment are not matters of mere order, but sacred mystical signs assumiug a sacramental character. To introduce such into the church of God, I shall afterwards have occasion, at more length, to show is utterly unlawful. They are not, in any sense, circumstantials of divine worship ; they are humanly-invented additions to that worship. Vainly will you at- tempt to justify them by quoting the direction of the apostle. I defy the ingenuity and the sophistry of man to show that they are com- prehended under the rule " let all things be done decently and in. order. " No, sir, in this and similar language, in these general princi- ples which he lays down, the inspired teacher authorises the church to arrange, alter, and regulate the circumstances of God's worship, but he gives her no liberty whatever to cor- rupt that worship by adding new rites of her own, of a significant and sacramental cha- racter, to those which Christ, the only Legis- lator of his church, has already appointed. Hearing this grand distinction in mind, it is perfectly easy to understand those testimonies which you have absurdly advanced from the Reformers, under the pretence that they coin- cide with and support the views which your church maintains. You have quoted Du Moulin and Chamier, Beza and Calvin. Why, sir, I cordially concur in every jot and tittle of the alleged concessions that they make. WithDn .Moulin I freely admit, that "there are many things which concern ecclesiastical polity and outward order which are not to be rejected though not in Scripture, provided (mark this,) there be nothing in them against good manners, (is it good manners to symbolist- with idolaters?) that they exceed not tn number, (why the cata- logue of your ceremonies is a burden upon the memory,) and that they be not given B8IM- cessary to salvation and equally important as • Re?. A. Boyd. 200 CHURCH roVv'ER.— OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS. the doctrines of faith contained in the Scrip- ture ; " — would not your church reject the best Christian on earth from the table of his Lord, if he refused to kneel, and is not this making an unscriptural rite as important as faith, for if the man were an infidel she would do no more? Let us now hear Chamier: "There is one safe rule to be observed in rites and ceremonies, that whatever things we see and know to he ordained in any church, which are not contrary to faith and aood manners, (oh !) and have any thing to excite to faith and a good life; (to wit, — the institution of godfathers and godmothers, and the adding to baptism the superstitious sign of the cross!) these," says this writer, " we should not only not con- demn, but commend, and imitate, if the weak- ness of some do not so far hinder that it would he more harm than good to do it. " Mark, sir, I pray you, this closing sentence. We should not condemn these ceremonies if they have not offended, and do not offend the weak. Ah! sir, is this the characteristic of yours ? Think of all the evils they have occasioned in time past; think of the thousands of sincere Chris- tians whom they wound and grieve at present. It is manifest, sir, that Cliamier, in this testi- mony you have quoted from him, whatsoever may have been his intention, had none what- ever of sanctioning or approving the consci- ence-grieving rites of the Church of England. In truth, I think you must have been in- fatuated to appeal to these lights of the French Reformed church in vindication of your half- popish ritual. You cannot possibly have been acquainted with the true character of the church to which they belonged; you must he com- pletely in the dark respecting the contents of their Confession of Faith and Canons of Dis- cipline. Let me present, you with the following extract from the 33J Article, which will, I should hope, set your mind for ever at rest upon the subject.- This church "excluded all human inventions, and all those laws which are introduced to bind the conscience under pretence of God's service, and received only such as served to keep up concord, and to retain every one from the highest to the lowest in due obe- dience." By such an extract as this from the standards of the French church we are of course to qualify and interpret the expressions of her ministers. It proves, beyond contradiction, that from them at least you will never obtain any countenance or sanction for your church's ceremonies. Finding your preposterous claims disallowed by these enlightened Frenchmen, you now be- take yourself for succour to two other contin- ental authorities. You refer first to Beza, and you tell us that you consider his views " judi- cious." I perfectly agree with you. They are to this effect : " That when the church, having respect to order, decency, and edifica- tion, makes laws about indifferent things, such laws are carefully to be observed by the faith- ful, who are bound in conscience, notknowingly or wittingly with rebellious mind, to do what is prohibited, or omit what is commanded. " Undoubtedly. That the church possesses the power here claimed for her, presbyterians have- never denied. And what is the amount of that power ? To make laws about " indifferent things." Is it an indifferent thing to introduce an unscriptural sign into God's worship, and to make it teach an important truth? Again, the church, in her rite-making, Reza teaches, must maintain a careful respect to " order, decency, and "edification." Whenever you prove to us that corrupting the ordinance of baptism, by the idolatrous sign of-the cross, is decent, and that compelling all to kneel at the communion, though they may feel their con- sciences outraged by the practice, tends to edify the church, then shall we admit that Beza in the words you have quoted, is countenancing your ceremonies, and then shall we join with him in recommending that they should bo " carefully observed by all the faithful." You appeal now to Calvin ! I may well place a note of exclamation at the end of his name, for surely we cannot but be amazed at the ig- norance or the audacity of the man who, in the nineteenth century, presumes to quote this Re- former in vindication of the ritual of the Church of England. You ask me with great naivete, " will it surprise you to learn that the Refor- mation-authority of presby terianism adopts our view of the case?" I answer, exceedingly. It will astound me bej-ond measure to learn this — for I know that Calvin's principles were diametrically opposed to those on which your church has proceeded in enacting her decrees. You at length bring forward his testimony — And what is it ? Why, sir, neither more nor less than a direct condemnation of your cere- monies, and an explicit recognition of that im- portant distinction which I have already made between the parts of divine worship and the circumstances connected with it. "Forasmuch," says Calvin, " as Christ hath fully comprised in his holy oracles the whole sum of true right- eousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and whatever is necessary to salvation, in these things we are only to have one master. But in outward discipline and ceremonies, he would not so particularly prescribe what we should do, because, he foresaw that would depend on the different condition of times, and he did not judge one form agreeable to all ages: there- fore, in this case, we must have recourse to the general rules he has left us, and thereby square those laws which are proper to be made for the preservation of order and decency in the church." Can you be so dull as not to perceive in all this, that Calvin actually de- nounces your church for having added to the parts of divine worship, already complete, a number of invented ceremonies of her own, such as festival days, kneeling, the sign of the cross, bowing at the name of Jesus, &c. ; and that these are parts of God's worship we have already shown, and pledge ourselves at more length to demonstrate. Do you not see, more- over, that all the discretionary power he as- signs the church is that of making laws to pre- serve decency T and order, or, as we have already CHURCH POWER.— ANCIENT USAGES NOW OMITTED. 201 explained, arranging the circumstances of wor- ship, so as that it may be always conducted in a suitable and becoming manner. You make another quotation from Calvin, which I do not think it necessary to analyse, as its testimony is precisely similar to the one just considered. You ask me, can I bear it? I assure you my equanimity is undisturbed. These testimonies which you have advanced from the reformers, I not only bear with pa- tience, but receive with gratitude. They are valuable attestations to the scripturality of presbyterianism in its arrangements for wot ship. They show that, while Calvin and the other great lights of the Reformation allowed that external circumstances might be varied so as to secure decency and edification, they sternly denounced any attempt to bind hu- manly-invented rites on the consciences of men, or introduce significant ceremonies into the church of God. This I shall presently more fully demonstrate by additional and still more unequivocal testimonies from their writings. In the meantime, I have to thank you for having called attention to the passages already quoted, for they must prove to every mind not hopelessly stupid, or utterly besotted with pre judice, that, in the mind of the reformers, the Church of England impeaches the wisdom and usurps the prerogative of Christ, when she dares to claim to herself " the power to decree rites and ceremonies." Before I proceed to bring forward the posi- tive arguments which I shall adduce to show that the assumption of such power is unwar- rantable, I may here take notice of those three practices mentioned in the New Testament which presbyterians do not introduce into their worship, and which you charge them with inconsistency in omitting. You say, " The or- der of deaconesses certainly existed in the times of St. Paul." Certainly : — and whatever may have been the peculiar character and duties of this class of functionaries, when you can show us that the circumstances of the church now require them as much as in apos- tolic times, and when you produce to us, be- sides, from the sacred record, some passage in which the manner of their appointment is de- scribed, we shall then most assuredly set them apart. If we regard these persons, as some have done, in the light of female servants of the church, we have then no sin of omission in this matter to extenuate or justify. In that case, in taking for granted their non-existence, you have assumed what is not the fact. We are provided, I do assure you, with sextones- sos in the presbyterian church. If you are incredulous on this point, and I know that in all cases you like to see the originals, you have only to visit a number of our presbyterian con- gregations, and I have little doubt that some of my brethren, who may have heard of your anxiety on the subject of deaconesses, will be able to relieve it by exhibiting to you undoubted living specimens. But washing the fret of the disciples, you tell us, was anciently practised by the disci- ples. Surely you do not mean to say that this was an instituted rite of primitive worship. You know well enough that it was a mere civil ceremonial, peculiar to that particular country and climate, and similar in its nature and ends to those observances of friendship and hospi- tality which obtain among ourselves. You know perfectly that when Christ prescribed it to his immediate followers, he had not the re- motest idea of perpetuating it to distant ages, or insisting on its adoption in countries where it would be manifestly unsuitable. It is plain that all that the Saviour meant was, that his disciples should wash one another's feet in to- ken of their genuine humility. This was the feeling of which the outward act was intended to be the symbol, and that it was such a sym- bol arose not from any positive institution of God, but simply from the dictates of nature and the custom of the country. When Christ said, therefore, " Wash ye one another's feet," his injunction in other words was — see that ye omit not that customary practice which, owing to the light in which men now view it, will serve to show that ye are lowly and condescend- ing one to another. Is there then, indeed, any inconsistency in discontinuing this ancient rite of eastern civility, and yet condemning the ceremonies of the Church of England ? But you mention, as an additional instance, the kiss of charity. This, you remind us, is of apostolic injunction. The apostles thus enjoined the members of the church, "Greet one another with an holy kiss." It is really very difficult, sir, to preserve one's gravity when you bring forward such an instance as this. Do you really believe that the kissing mentioned by the apostle was one of the ap- pointed parts of ancient worship ? Do you seriously imagine that it was designed to be of perpetual obligation ? Are you prepared to sanction and exemplify its observance ? Do you conceive it meet, that on each assembling and separating of the church, its members should be careful to occupy themselves in the work of indiscriminate salutation ? Is not this, sir, perfectly ludicrous? Do you not see that the. discontinuance of this practice now is jus- tified by the fact that it was a mero local civil usage, and that the injunction of it by the apostle had reference not to the act itself, but to the spirit in which it was performed? It was not so much the kits that was enjoined as the holiness of it. Paul commands those to whom he writes to greet each other with an holy kiss, not thereby intimating that this practice was to be perpetuated in the church, lnit that, as this was the customary mode of saluting in that age, and had existed as such long prior to it, they should be found engaging in it, not in a sinful, treacherous, or merely complimentary manner, but with such gracious tempers and affections as become Christiana. It will be evident then, that there is no great stretch of church power assumed in discontinu- ing the kiss of charity. We conceive that \ro now literally fulfil the apostle's command, when in those usages which nature prompts and ous- 2 A 1202 CHURCH TOWER.— ITS LIMITATIONS. CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. torn sanctions, as expressive of courtesy and friendship, we cultivate sincerity of heart, and guard against every species of lasciviousness and hypocrisy. I proceed now to adduce some positive ar- guments to show that your church has no law- ful title to that power which, in the 20th Arti- cle, she so arrogantly claims. Let me premise- here, what I have already, in disposing of your arguments, hinted at, that I am far from doubt- ing or denying that the church of Christ has a certain degree of power assigned her in matters ecclesiastical. The difficulty is to ascertain its extent, to fix its limitations. I conceive that the church takes a proper and scriptural view of the power in this respect entrusted to her, when she exercises it in accordance with the following general rules. First, that the things she appoints he mere circumstances of God's worship. Secondly, that the matters she regulates he such as could not possibly be de- termined by Scripture, such as the hour of as- sembling on the Sabbath, the length of time worship should continue, and things of a like nature. Thirdly, that she give a satisfying rea- son for all her appointments, not resting them alone on her naked authority, hut showing that they carry with them, as Calvin expresses it, " a manifest utility." Within these limits, I believe that any church is at liberty to make arrangements. But this admission, you will perceive, does not benefit the Church of Eng- land. It can be clearly shown that she pre- sumptuously transgresses every one of these salutary restrictions. This will afterwards more fully appear. I proceed to observe, then, in the first place, that the claim put forth by the Church of Eng- land, in her 20th Article, is unlawful, because her assumption and exercise of the power there demanded is incompatible ivith Christian liberty. Let us suppose that the decree which your church enacts and publishes is considered by the great majority of her members to be inex- pedient and unwarrantable. How are they in these circumstances to act ? If the claim pre- ferred in the 20th Article be legitimate, must they not bow their necks beneath the yoke, and submit to a law which they are fully con- vinced has no just claim on their obedience r That is, in other words, they must outrage conscience because a spiritual tyrant wills it. Is this verily and indeed the duty of Christ's freemen ? Are they not privileged, on the contrary, to appeal to the Bible, the charter of their spiritual rights, and behold therein their liberty of judgment secured? Do they not find it there written, that they are no longer to he " subject to ordinances after the command- ments and doctrines of men," that to them it is given to " discern between good and evil," that they are to " callno man on earth master," that they are to "judge of all " that is said to them, that "they are not to believe every spirit," that they are to " prove all things, to hold fast that which is good"? How is it possible to reconcile these statements of Scrip- ture with a tame and unreasoning acquiescence in all the demands of church power ? How shall Christ's people act in the spirit of these exhor- tations, and yet implicitly bow down, on all oc- casions, to the sic volo sic jubeo of ecclesiasti- cal authority? But it maybe said, the consciences of those who object to the ceremonies are in error, and ought to be corrected and regulated by the de- cisions of the church. Granting that this were the case, yet we should remember that the Bible prohibits us from constraining any to violate the dictates even of an erring conscience. It in various places (for example, in the 14th chapter of Romans,) lays down the principle, that he that doeth any thing against the deli- berate testimony of his conscience, even though it should he unenlightened, therein sinneth against God. When any, then, habitually com- plywith the rites of the English church, who yet in their hearts condemn them, they are not ex- onerated from the guilt thus incurred by the fact that the church has enjoined them. Nor can the church be supposed to possess any rightful au- thority to enact ceremonies which necessarily involve those who observe them in a violation of the law of God. It thus appears that your church cannot have this power that she claims, because in her exercise of it, she tramples on the rights of conscience. But here you will probably step forward and tell me, that she has so limited her claim as to obviate all just objection. She has informed us that " she may not ordain any thing contrary to God's word written." Now it may be enough to answer, that with this limi- tation fully acknowledged, I can as completely vindicate the ceremonies of the Church of Rome as you can those of the Church of Eng- land. You tell me that I cannot prove yours to be contrary to the divine word : I challenge you to show that theirs are a whit more so. If you have aright to introduce the sign of the cross in baptism, I ask, have not they a right to add to that ordinance the salt, the spittle, and the oil ? If you are at liberty to enjoin the right of confirmation or absolution, are not they at liberty to ordain the ceremony of ex- treme unction ? If you bow your heads at the name of Jesus, may not they cross them- selves at any time they please ? If to you be- long the privilege of consecrating earth, what is to hinder them from imparting holiness to water ? In very truth, sir, I see not how the wit of man can escape the conclusion that the claim of the Church of England in this matter is a tacit recognition of the ceremonies of the Church of Rome. You may tell us, (as with laughable simplicity you do tell us,) that " the Romish church creates ceremo- nies for pomp and the encouragement of superstition." But bishop Crolly, or Dr. Den- vir, may turn round and say, " the English church creates ceremonies for pomp and for the encouragement of superstition." You may reply, " But ours are not contrary to the writ- ten word of God," and they will incontinently rejoin, " Worthy sir, neither are ours." Thus you see that this 20th Article of your church, CHURCH POWER.— WHERE VESTED IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 203 even with the vaunted restriction which is ap- pended to it, involves her in the guilt of re- cognising and sanctioning " the abominations of popery." It is farther to be observed that this limita tion,when examined, is, in reality, no limitation at all. " The church has power to decree ceremonies, yet so as she may not ordain any tiling contrary to God's word written:" — Who, as we have already asked, is to judge? Who is to examine and decide what things are re- pugnant to Scripture and what are not? Are tlic people allowed to give any opinion in the matter ? Are they at liberty to say, " in our judgment some of these rites are superstitious ; we shall feel it our duty in future to decline their observance " ? No such thing. The church would stand aghast at such presump- tion. Her province it is to ordain, the people's to submit. She may, if she think proper, in- troduce a hundred or rive hundred intolerable fopperies into the worship of God, and all the liberty she allows the people is, the liberty of admiring her consummate wisdom, and of be- ing convinced that she lias done nothing con- trary to the word of God. It is plain, sir, that the idea of the above-mentioned clause form- ing any limitation in your church's claim, is a pure deception. You affect to think it such, but in so doing you will hardly, I think, impose upon the most simple. It is so far evident, then, that the Church of England cannot lawfully arrogate to herself power to decree ceremonies, that when she in- troduces rites which form additions to God's worship, and enforces them on the sole ground of her own authority, she invades and infringes Christen liberty. Now, if it be true that the whole church, (we mean the whole body of the faithful composing a particular church,) docs not possess this power, much less can the pas- tors of the church alone be supposed to possess it. It is a principle established in the word of God and sanctioned by the judgment of learned divines, that the introducing of any change in the outward order or policy of a church, ought as far as possible to be with the consent of the whole church thereto. To use the language of a judicious writer, " Such a change is rightly introduced when it is brought in ir it h tin' ion sent of all the orders of 'the church." I would ask, then, what are we to understand by the church in the phraseology of the 2oth Article? Dues it mean the bishops and gover- nors of the church, the clergy met in solemn convocation:' If 80, I ask again, who gave them the authority to legislate in matters of worship for the body of Christ's people ? Who lodgedwith them the power to oblige the Lord's freemen to observe onscriptnral rites, and to fulminate anathemas against them in case of disobedienoe ? Is this prerogative assigned them in any part of the word of God"? I fear- lessly challenge the proof of such a position. I believe thai they who would maintain this position, namely) that the bishops, whether separately of met in convocation, have a right to impose ceremonies upon the church without the ascertained consent and concurrence of its members, must adopt some new interpretation of such texts as these : " Call no man upon earth master; one is your Master, even Christ." " Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the Hock." But I go on to remark, farther, that if, as has been shown, the whole church has not the authority claimed in the 20th Article, and if still less can the bishops and governors of the church he said to possess it, then least of all can we suppose it to be vested in the civil power, in the king or queen, and parliament of the country. Rut in them the prerogative of decreeing ceremonies is actually vested, by the constitution of the Church of England. The 20th Article talks of the church: this word, I shall speedily demonstrate, means only the chief ruler and the parliament. I shall prove this by a reference to acts of parliament, to the deliberate judgment of no less a personage than an archbishop, and to the articles and canons of the church itself. By the 25th of Henry VIII, cap. 19, "it is a praemunire for the convocation to meet without the king's writ, and when they are met to do any thing without the king's li- cence, and then no resolution of theirs to have the force of a canon, unless the king confirm it." Hale, in his Analysis, * page 12, says, " if ecclesiastical laws are not confirmed by parliament, the king may revoke and annul them at his will and pleasure.'' Let us see now what view a learned dignitary of your church takes of this subject. " It has been decreed," says archbishop Wake, " by the sta- tute 25th Henry VIII, called the Act of Sub- mission, that the convocation henceforth should be assembled only by the king's writ, that it should make no canons or constitutions but by virtue of the king's licence first (/'urn them so to do, that having agreed on any canons or constitutions, they should yet neither publish nor execute them without the king's confirmation of them, f Again, he says, " Notwithstanding the resolution of the convocation, the king is to remain the last judge, not only of the law- fulness but of the expediency too of their con- stitutions, and has authority either to ratify or reject them;a& he, with the advice of his coun- cil, shall think them either useful or otherwise to the chinch." + He adds, § that "the kin- lias power without it COntfOCattOn tO make and publish such injunctions as he shall think the necessities oj the church In require, and to com- mand the observance of them." In corrobora- tion of this, lie refers to Appendix No. VII, which contains a list of a great number of al- terations, ret ieu s, and reformations in ecclesi- astical matters, which have been done entirely by private commissions, withoul the advice or consent of a convocation, through the several reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, * See Notes mi .mi Answer to the Examination of the Bishop (.r London'a Codes + see Make's Appeal, p. I. Bvo. Lond. I69& t See Wake'a authorit) oi Christian Princes, p. 131. Bvo, Lond. 1697. i Page 130. 204 CHURCH POWER.— MYSTICAL RITES UNLAWFUL. James I, and Charles L* Wo may add here, in proof of this, the well known fact that the Act of 1 Eliz. chap. 11, which constitutes the present church establishment, was passed, as judge Blackstone observes, with the dissent of all the bishops, ■f Permit me now, sir, to ask you, do not your articles and canons affirm the very principle which these testimonies I have quoted estab- lish — that the power you claim to decree rites, you have lodged not in the church but in the parliament? What says the 34th Article? It decrees that " whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church — hurteth the authority of the magistrate." Again, what says the 30th canon ? — " We hold it the part of every private man, both minister and other, reverently to retain the use of the ceremonies, prescribed by public authority, con- sidering that things of themselves indifferent do in some sort alter their natures when they are either commanded or forbidden by a lawful magistrate, and may not be omitted at every man's pleasure, contrary to the law." It is plain, sir, from such language as this, " pre- scribed by public authority," " commanded by a lawful magistrate," &c, that the authority is lodged by the very constitution of your church not in the ecclesiastical, but wholly in the civil power, It is the prerogative not of the church, hut of the state, to frame and fashion the ritual to which Christ's people are to conform them- selves. It is not to the bishops and clergy, hut to the king or queen, as the case may be, and to the parliament, a civil assembly com- posed of individuals of all creeds and characters, we are to look for the appointment of those ceremonies which we are to observe in the worship of God, Now let me ask, who gave the chief magistrate this authority thus to ex- cise dominion over the church ? Where has the Saviour recognised his right thus to lord it over his own heritage ? In what part of the Bible has he said that a king or queen, (even though " most religious,") and a body of lay- men called a parliament, shall regulate and establish these as indispensable terms of com- munion ? Point out to me, if you can, sir, the place in which he has delegated this power to any man or body of men. You are unable to do so. The assumption of such a power, even by the whole church, is unwarrantable. Its exercise by a part of the church is still more so. But its being vested (as I have shown it is vested,) in the civil power, involves in it so monstrous a violation of all religious principle, and so total a surrender of all religious liberty, as could be expected to be found in no protes- tantchurch, save and excepting only the Church of England. Let me now call your attention to a second line of argument, by which it may be shown that your church, (I shall still take for granted, for the sake of convenience, that she is the * Authority of Christian Princes, pp. 2j6, 381. + See Blackst.me's Commentaries, 8ih edition, Book I, chap, ii, p. 156.— Gibb's Codex, p. 2G8. fountain of authority, though I have shown the contrary,) has no rightful title to the power claimed in the 20th Article* The nature of the ceremonies ichich she has adopted is such as that it must be utterly unlawful for her to ordain them. I shall mention some elements in them which render them peculiarly liable to exception. In the first place, they are, mystical, significant ceremonies. They are not mere arrangements for the preservation of order, but symbols in- vented and ordained for the express purpose of teaching truth and inculcating duty. This, indeed, is expressly affirmed by the Book of Common Prayer in its preliminary dissertation concerning ceremonies. It speaks of them there as " neither dark nor dumb," hut — "such as be apt to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of his duty to God, by some not- able and special signification." Now, sir, I maintain that the framing of ceremonies of such a nature and for such a purpose as this is wholly unwarrantable. It is a violation of the spirit of the Second Commandment, This commandment forbids us to make to ourselves the likeness of any thing whatsoever for a religious use. But if we create and use ceremonies for the end spe- cified, to " stir up our dull minds to the re- membrance of some truth," or animate us to the discharge of some duty, do we not thereby virtually make to ourselves images or simili- tudes of spiritual things to assist us in drawing near to Jehovah ? Again, to impose significant rites on the members of the church is, in effect, to bring them again under the yoke of a ceremonial law, from which Jesus Christ has proclaimed their liberation. The Saviour, we are told, has under the gospel for ever abrogated the former Jewish rites, not only those which prefigured himself, but such as served also to teach moral duties, so that now none of them may be continued in the church, no not for signification. The in- ference which many learned divines have drawn from this is very clear, " that, if those ceremonies which God himself ordained to teach his church by their signification may not now be used, much less may those which man hath devised." Once more, your church in using mystical ceremonies invades the office of Christ as the great Prophet of his people. His sole province it is to appoint all the means whereby we may be instructed in truth and admonished of duty. For men to devise and employ additional means for this end is unquestionably to usurp his prerogative, and assert the imperfection of the means which he has ordained. Nor can such presumptuous interference fail to excite the strongest displeasure of the Son of God. Mark the judgment he forms of it as illustrated in the stern rebuke he once administered to the superstitious Pharisees. These men had ad- ded to the " divers washings " appointed under the law, innumerable other washings which had no other origin than their own fancy, such as washings of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, CHURCH POWER.— SYMBOLISING WITH IDOLATERS. SURPLICE. 205 and tables. What is the language of Christ ? "In vain," says he," they worship rae, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. " * Now, observe here, the error of the Pharisees lay in assigning to these a special significance — in making them, (as the Scripture expresses it,) " teach doctrines.'" This, the Saviour ex- pressly declares, is vain worship ; and I would ask you, is not the Church of England guilty of it when she invents ceremonies additional to those appointed in the Word, and ordains them " to stir up the dull mind of man to the remembrance of duty, and imparts to them a special and notable signification." Is there nothing, think you, in all this, like teaching for doctrines the commandments of men? You may think so, but a theologian to whom you and all the doctors of your church, whether an- cient or modern, should " bow with deference," thought otherwise. Hear what Calvin says on this subject : " Hence we learn, that no doctrine, no sacred sign should be admitted among the godly, except it be evidently of di- vine authority ; neither may men arbitrarily fa- bricate (or invent) anything." f And this is the man whom you have quoted as testifying in favour of your ritual. No, sir, the reformer abhorred the idea of introducing mystical ceremonies into God's worship, and every one who re/lucts on the subject in the light of Scripture must see that the Church of England can never lawfully arrogate to herself the power to bind ceremonies of such a nature on the consciences of Christians. I go on now to take notice of a second ele- ment in your ceremonies, which renders their appointment unlawful. That is, they involve those who observe them in the guilt of symbo- lising with idolaters. It might easily be shown that the principal of them, such as the appoint- ment of saints' days and festivals, kneeling at the sacrament, the sign of the cross in baptism, and the use of the surplice, are of this cha- racter. With regard to two of these, kneeling and the sign of the cross, I may have an op- portunity of adverting to this point more fully afterwards. At present, I would say a word or two respecting the surplice. I speak not of the " special and notable signification " at- tached to this garment. I would simply ask, has it not been in time past, is it not at present notoriously prostituted to idolatry ? What was the origin of this dress ? We learn from his tory that pope Sylvester was the first who ap- pointed the Sacrament to be administered in a white linen garment. In process of time it became abused to all manner of superstition, — a special holiness and virtue were supposed to be connected with it, and the priests of Rome could not engage in Ihe service of the mass, or perform any of their pretended consecrations and conjurations without being clothed in this mystical garb. Now, is there no evil in ap- pointing such a dress as this, thus originating, • Mark, vii,7. + " liidecolLimusnullamdoctrinam, nullum sacrum signum debere ioter pios admitti, nisi, a Deo prnfecta esse constct, nee esse in liumiuum arbltrio quiequam excudere. "— Calv. in Mult. xxi. -Jo. thus abused, to be the invariable distinguishing habit of the ministers of a protestant church ? Is there no danger of the ignorant being led to think there is some peculiar holiness in it, es- pecially when they learn that it may not, in a single instance, be dispensed with, and when they see it invariably appropriated to a par- ticular part of the service ? If popery has consecrated this dress to a particular use, and made its adoption essential to the validity of the sacraments, what must the common people of the Church of England think, when they see their ministers wearing it only at prayers in the reading desk, or when officiating at the altar, but throwing it off and assuming a dif- ferent one when engaged in preaching the gos- pel ? Is there no symbolising with idolatry in all this ?* Rut every thing of that nature the word of God condemns as sinful. I would re- fer you in proof of this to Lev. xix. 27, 28, where you will find that God forbids to his people the most harmless usages, simply be- cause they were practised by the idolatrous nations around them. Hear again his com- mand in Isaiah xxx. 22; (and I conceive that it very forcibly applies to the subject to which we are at present referring:) "Ye shall also defile the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a men- struous cloth ; thou shalt say unto it, get thee hence. " Here God signifies his abhorrence not only of idolatry itself, but of all its monu- ments and badges, and enjoins his people, as they would show an enlightened zeal for his honour and for the purity of his worship, to renounce and cast them off for ever. And this was the spirit felt and manifested at the era of the Reformation. It is a well-known fact, that many of the bishops of the English church were then most anxious to banish from her worship the former prostituted rites ; in par- ticular, the " habits," as they called them, they earnestly desired might be abandoned. The celebrated Hooper, among others, so disliked them that he actually submitted to be impri- soned rather than wear them. And the lan- guage of bishop Jewel expresses the utmost detestation of them. He calls them " popish vestments, habits of the stage, the relics of the Amorites, and wishes that all these remnants of former errors, with all the rubbish and all the dust that yet remained, might be taken away. " Such is the light in which the surplice was viewed by the reformer's, f You sneer at * The following language is used by TVrtullian: " If it be Unlawful tu sit in an Idol's ti-mple, what is it to be seen in his Itiibtt ? \\ hat communion is there between Christ and Belial? And therefore flee from idolatry." De Coron. c. 10. + It may here be observed that not only the particular ceremony animadverted on above, but almost all those obnoxious rites lor which modern Churchmen so de- votedly contend, were not merel, not insisted on, but ueie ii< tact solemnly condemned by the leading Prelates of the English Church at the era of the Reformation. Hornet te»ti|ies that such men as Craumer. and Horn, Parkhnrst, bishop of Norwich, PUUnglon, of Dur- ham, Sands of Worcester, and the most respect- able of the clergy in the lower house of Convocation, did not by any means approve of kneeling at the l.ucha- rist, signing with the Cross in baptism, bowing at the 206 CHURCH POWER.— THE LAW OF CHARITY VIOLATED. the Geneva gown occasionally worn by pres- byterian ministers. You should have recol- lected that it is not imposed upon any, and that it is not appropriated to one particular part of the service of the sanctuary, as if it were es- sential to ensure its validity. You should have remembered, besides, that it has never been desecrated and reviled like the surplice. Had it ever been the badge of idolatry, or were it at this moment the ornament of Rome's priest- hood and the recognised symbol of her super- stition, persuaded I am, that there is not a presbyterian minister who would degrade him- self by wearing it, or who would submit for a moment to the decree of any church that would attempt tyrannically to impose it. But your church imposes it, and she im- poses a variety of other ceremonies which equally identify her with idolaters ; and I ask you now, has she any right to do so J" Is there any fitness, propriety, or decency in such " ar- rangements ?" Is it necessary that the Spouse of the Redeemer should be tricked out in the ornaments of the Romish harlot ? Is it indis- pensable that the Israel of God should symbo- lise with the spiritual Sodom ? Must the Chris- tian Church be like the antichristian, the true religion like the false, the temple of God like the synagogue of Satan? Surely we must see that the Church of England has not, and can- not have, the power which in the 20th Article she claims — a power arbitrarily to impose on men's consciences ceremonies which involve consequences like these. Let me call your attention now to a third element in your ceremonies, and the last which I shall at present notice, which shows their utter unlawfulness. It is this; their enforcement violates the law of Christian charity. The word name of Jesus, and a variety of other ceremonies,— hut only bore with them, for a lime, in the hope that they would speedily obtain their abrogation. They wished (in the words of BUhop Jewell, when writing to Bullin- ger, in 1566,) '• that the very slightest footsteps of Co. pery might be removed out of the Church, but the Queen would, at that time, suffer no change in religion. " The memorable fact that, in 1562, they introduced and all but carried in the Convocation, a measure for the final abolition of the objectionable rites, speaks volumes as to their real sentiments respecting them. It is matter of history that that wise and all-important measure was actually carried by a majority of those present, but when the proxies were included there was formed a majority of one for retaining them The arguments used by Archbishop Parker's chaplains to prevail on the house to retain them.derived their chief forcefrom its being under- stood to be the desire of the Queen. See Burnet 11. Ap- pend, pp. 319-20—351. Strype's Annals I. 298—300. Neal's Hist. vol. 1. — Thus hail it not been for the Popish predilections of lilizabeth, these obnoxious forms, which have been so long the subject of so much angry contro- versy, would not now be disgracing the ritual, and mar- ring the efficiency, and perilling the existence of the Anglican Church. But is it not surprising to witness the almost total opposition of sentiment that is dis- covered on this subject between the Bishops of the 16th century and the curates of the I'Jth ? The foimer at once gave up as indefensible abuses, arrangements which the latter conceive they can never intensely enough ad- mire or gallantly enough defend. We cannot but feel a measure of consolation in reflecling.that when we lift up, in these d ay s.our humble protest against the unscriptnraj usages of prelacy, We have the Cranmers, he Hoopers, the Jewells, and the Pai'khursts, on our side; — while arrayed against us and against them stands — the Kev. Archibald Boyd .' of God commands us to abstain from every thing, (unless necessary by nature, or enjoined by revelation,) which is calculated to affect injuriously the well-being of others. It has commended this principle to us by frequent precept and by striking examples. " Take heed," says Christ, "that ye offend not one of these little ones. " The offending of a single believer he here represents as a grievous sin; how much greater the sin when multitudes are scandalized ! Let us mark now the language of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor. viii. 12, 13: "But when ye sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Now, sir, I pray you to meditate on these testimonies, on the Lord's solemn caution, on his apostle's noble-minded declaration. And when you have done this, call to mind what has been the result of your church's conduct in binding her yoke of ceremonies upon the necks of Christ's people. Think of that time when upwards of two thousand godly ministers were driven forth from their homes penniless upon the world, because they would not submit to this galling yoke ? Was there no guilt, think you, then incurred by the Church of England, in thus wounding and grieving the consciences of Christ's flock ? Besides, does not your church in this matter infringe the law of charity in another point of view, for must not her anxious retaining and enforcing of her ceremonies tend to harden Roman Catholics in their superstition ? It is certain that it has had this tendency in time past. Thus it has been shown that Martiall, from the sign of the cross as used by you, vin- dicates the popish crossing ; that Parsons and Bristowe (two Romish controversialists) regard the English Service Book as countenancing their Mass Book ; that the Rhemish divines extract from your " absolution of the sick " a kind of approval of their rites of absolution and auricular confession, and lastly, justify their feast of the assumption of Mary, by refe- rence to the various feasts observed by the Church of England. As a farther illustration of this, it is stated in the life of Bishop Hall, that in his voyage up the Maese, he had what he calls " a dangerous conflict with a Carmelite friar, who argued, from the English protestants insisting on kneeling at the sacrament, that they recognised the doctrine of transubstan- tiation.* Sir, what has been, may be. Are you sure that none of the poor deluded papists are, at this moment, built up in their manifold superstitions bywitnessing the strange pertina- city with which the Church of England cleaves to not a few of them, and the red-hot zeal with which her ministers defend them ? In addition to all this, it should be borne in mind that the law of charity is broken by your church when she imposes these ceremonies, in another respect, namely, in reference to multitudes of her own members. Let us su'p- * Life o( Bishop Hall prefixed to his Contemplations, p. 16. CHURCH POWER.— CEREMONIES PROMOTE SUPERSTITION. 207 pose a weak Christian — a man of tender con- science, a member of the Church of England. He feels and has long felt an invincible repug nance to many of her ceremonies, yet terrified by her anathemas, he goes on, year after year, stilling his convictions, and doing what he be- lieves in his heart is contrary to the mind of God. Is it charitable in your church to decree observances which (unnecessary in themselves) involve Christ's little ones in the habitual \ iolationof the dictates of conscience? In doing this, does she not, in the judgment of Paul, " sin against Christ"? And then think how many of the ignorant of her own communion she thus causes to stumble and fall ! What multitudes are there in every congregation totally unacquainted with the very first elements of truth, and who have not " their senses exercised to discern between good and evil." What must be the influence exerted on the minds of such, by the habitual use of many of your ceremonies ? For example, when they see the sign of the cross invariably used in baptism, and are told that on no account can their offspring be received into the membership of the church without it, will they not be led to think that there is some hidden virtue in this gesture ? In point of fact, has it not often occurred that children have been brought to church to be baptized over again, simply because, in the first cele- bration of the ordinance, this sign had been omitted? And how can the people be expect- ed to do otherwise than attach a superstitious value and importance to this sign, when they hear their own ministers from the pulpit liken- ing it, in the magic influence it exerts, to the " simple deed of breaking the bread at the com- munion table of the Lord}" and hesitating not to assert that " with the thought of it would come over the mind touching associations and solemn recollections, which would stablish the heart in a moment of doubt or timidity"?* Or, to take another instance, when the various saints' days prescribed by the church come round, and they are required to observe them and keep them holy to the Lord, must they not imbibe the persuasion that there is some special Bacredness in these set times and sea sons: 1 .Must they not lie led to believe that they are different from the other week-days, and that in pursuing the ordinary avocations during their continuance they would be sin- ning against God ? I ask, is it unreasonable or unnatural to suppose that surmises and sus- picions of this kind have been and are engen- dered in the minds of the ignorant, by the contemplation and use of the ceremonies of your church ? What says experience ? What says observation ? f I fearlessly appeal to » See Sermons nn (lie Church, page 109. + In Illustration of what is stated above, I would so- licit attention to tin- subjoined address, latch presented to the clergy of Rath by a large body of lay members of the Church of England, It is a most instructive docu- ment. It shows how far-sighted were the Reformers, — what a profound knowledge they eviuced alike of human nature and of the Bible, when they protested against the both, and firmly believe that both will warrant me in asserting, that their inevitable tendency is to cast a stumbling-block before the feet of the unwary, to cloud their minds with error, and addict them to an inveterate habit of will' worship and superstition. Is it right in your church then to pursue such a course as this? * In doing so, is she not directly disobeying that command which says to churches, as well as to individuals, "abstain from all appearance oi' evil " ? I have thus clearly shown you, sir, that in various respects the ceremonies imposed by the Church of England infringe the law of Christian charity. She cannot, then, have any right to enjoin them. The claim which she puts forth in the 20th Article is therefore not a legitimate one. In the sense in which she understands and exercises it, your church "hath not power to decree rites and cere- monies." On the whole, I have now finished, or (as you pompously speak) " closed up," the pnjnt of church power. I have dwelt long on it, be- cause it is most important. I have shown the ceremonies of the F.n rjlish church, as having a tendency to le:'d bark to idolatry : "To the Venerable the Archdeacon of Bath, to the Reverends the Rectors of Bath, and Walcot, and Bath, wick — The undersigned, especially as located in the immediate vicinity of two Roman Catholic colleges, beg very respectfully to urge the necessity of watching and of counteracting the insidious effects of the idolatrous system of Romanism, — a system whose approaches are subtle and silent, or bold and open, in the measure and in the mode which the circumstances of its Antichiistian policy may require. Believing that in the present event- ful times, not merely the outworks but the citadel itself of Protestantism in these realms bears sad tokens of the enemy's encroachment, and that these devices of Popery, instead of being exposed and denounced ,are either viewed as harmless or with positive approval; the undersigned laymen, strengthened by the conviction that the evil to which the> now refer is unequivocally condemned by the Established Church, feel constrained to direct the atten- tion of the ecclesiastical authorities to the fact, that in Bath, as in too many other places, pictures intended to represent the incarw te Deity or glorified saints are placed over the. communior, tulile. which latter, embtasoned with the letters I. H. S. and set nut with massive candlesticks, presents all the appearance of an altar for a popish saeri. fice ; and that this semblance to the paraphernalia of a worship denounced bj the word of God as an 'accursed thing,' is farther promoted bij the practice of turning round and bowing the head toward the place and the ob- jects thus sought to lie rendered sacred and attractive. — Solemnly persuaded that by the above-mentioned evil practises the precincts of Protestantism have been in- vaded, the prim iplesof the Church ol England violated, and above all, that the spiritual worship of the invisible and jealous (Jod has been compromised ; seeing also that entighti ned consciences arc thereby offended, and the minds of the n>eak in faith tampered with and prepared tm the delusions of Popery ; and, finally, well Knowing that, both under the Old and New dispensations, multi- tudes have beensedueed by such means into idolatry and apostacy, the undersigned implore the application of a prompt and effectual remedy to an evil whose tendency is to restore the fatal ascendancy of Popery in this Pro- testant and favoured land." Signed by twenty-three laymen. Record Newspaper, Feb. 24th, 1810. * Fuller says that the English Reformers " permitted ignorant people to retain some fond customs, that they might remove the most dangerous and destructive su- perstitions; as mothers to cet children to part with knives, are content to let them play With POfUst." " Very- good, observes Dr. IM'Crie in quoting this remark of the quaint old Divine, but il children aie suffered to play tn« lanq nith rattles, they are in great danger ot not patting with them all their days." 208 FORMS OF PRAYER.— MR. BOYD'S MISREPRESENTATIONS. utter futility of the reasoning by which you attempt to establish the principle for which you contend. I have made it clear that neither from the practice of ancient Israel, nor the decisions of the council at Jerusalem, nor the general injunctions of the apostles, have you been able to make out any feasible justifica- tion of your church's claim. I have proved, by positive and incontrovertible arguments, that such a claim is utterly unlawful. I have shown this, in the first place, from the fact that the power demanded is incompatible with Christian liberty — that it is so, even if lodged in the whole church, much more if lodged in a part of it, most of all if vested in the civil power. I have shown, secondly, that the Church of England cannot have this power, because the ceremonies which she has ordain- ed are, in their nature, contrary to the princi- ples of truth and righteousness, are significant and mystical, involve those who practise them in the guilt of symbolising with idolatry, have disturbed the peace of the church in time past, and continue to this hour, in various respects, to violate the law of Christian charity. On these grounds, sir, presbyterians feel that they are bound ever to protest, in the most solemn manner, against the claim which your church has set up in the 20th Article. On these grounds, I feel myself entitled to reiterate my former assertion, and again put on record my deliberate conviction, that in making it and exercising it, she impeaches Christ's wisdom, usurps his prerogative, tramples on the liberty of his people, and presents before the world a systematic recognition of the errors and abo- minations of popery. SECT. IX. — FOnMS OF PRAYER. I now enter on the subject of forms of pray- er. In your review of this part of my discourse you have lost your temper altogether. You are exasperated beyond measure, because I stated several objections to the prayers of the English liturgy. You tell me that "the chill of dissenting prejudice must have frozen up the better nature of my heart." I ask you, how know you that ? Are you able to read my heart? Do you not hear the word of God rebuking you for so uncharitable an imputation in these words, — "judge not that ye be not judged " ? Besides, is not the assumption, that every one who finds fault with your liturgy must neces- sarily have his better nature-frozen up, a very extravagant one ? Has there been no instance of a single pious or unprejudiced individual insisting, and that in strong terms, on the dis- advantages of your forms of prayer ? Why, sir, I have shown you that in every one of the objections I advanced against them, I was for- tified in my views by the authority of no less a personage than a bishop. I quoted for you on each point the testimony of bishop Wilkins. This you have taken care to pass by in total silence, but surely you will not say that his " better nature was frozen up by prejudice " of any kind. I have now, however, to bring against you a graver charge. I now accuse you not merely of an unchristian imputation on my moral na ture, but of a most scandalous misrepresenta- tion of my expressed opinions on this subject. You say * that I have designated the service of the established church, (meaning thereby her prayers, for it is of them you are speaking,) " a solemn farce?" — " a handle to the jests of the scoffer." And again, in the next page, you intimate, that I have railed against " the touch- ing and sublime prayers of the English liturgy as a solemn farce, a handle for scoffers." Sir, I tell you, that when you wrote this language for the purpose of holding me up to public odium, you penned what you must have known to be an absolute untruth. What will men think of you when I solemnly declare that I never uttered the sentiments you ascribe to me? What was it that I did say ? Why, the latter phrase, " a handle to the jests of the scoffer," I applied exclusively to the burial ser- vice. I used it not in reference to the forms of prayer contained in that service, but to the fact of these prayers being read over departed profligates. In this application I said, and I still saj , that a handle is given by it to the jests of the scoffer. The other phrase " a so- lemn farce, " I employed to describe an ima- gined scene in which a frivolous and fashion- able worldling enacts the part of a Christian minister, and reads over in a careless and ir- reverent manner the form of words prescribed by the English Church. The whole passage the reader will find in page 239 of 'Presbyterian- ism Defended.' I used the obnoxious phrase solely in reference to a supposed case in which the service is performed by an ungodly clergy- man. So far from applying it to the prayers of your church themselves, I distinctly observed in the very passage referred to, that " many of them were conceived in the loftiest spirit of devotion," and " breathed the sublimest piety." And yet you represent me, before a Christian community, as having designated all the pray- ers of the English liturgy a solemn farce ! I ask you now, are you not ashamed of your- self? You tell me, with a diverting air of self-importance, that many of the remarks I have made in my discourse, you " can afford to disregard." I hope that you will not include the remark I have here felt it mydutyto make among the number. Let me assure you, sir, that a charge of gross falsification and deliber- ate perversion of an opponent's meaning is what no man " can afford to disregard." In discussing the subject of forms of prayer, it is important to bear in mind what is the real question at issue. You have endeavoured, I perceive, to mystify it, but I will state accu- rately for what presbyterians contend. They do not assert, as I have repeatedly said, the absolute unlawfulness of all forms. But they believe that their habitual use is attended with so many serious disadvantages, as to ren- der free or unrestricted prayer an infinitely better mode of conducting public devotion. » Letters, p. 270. FORMS NOT USED UNDER THE JEWISH DISPENSATION. 2ftl> This position I expect to be able abundantly to establish. It should be remembered, however, that this is not the sole ground of our complaint against prescribed prayers. We have a controversy with them besides on the very ground that they are prescribed. We affirm that no man or body of men, no king, no convocation, no parliament, has a right to frame the petitions, and confes- sions, and thanksgivings of the Christian peo- ple, and to proclaim that in the exact words which they have decreed, and in them alone, are they undeviatingly to address their Maker. We ask, where is the liible warrant for this? We ask, whence has the church this authority, or who gave her this authority ? This, sir, is the great grievance. But at this you have never even once glanced, either in ' Sermons on the Church,' or in the ' Letters.' You have prosed interminably in both, on the lawfulness, and the beauty, and the excellence, and the propriety, of your forms of prayer; but how the church acquired the right to bind down these particular forms on the consciences of Christ's freemen, you have not once attempted to ex- plain. The next time you enlighten the pub- lic on the subject of liturgies, let the com- mencement of your dissertation be, a vindication of their imposition by human authority. I shall now take up seriatim your arguments in support of forms of prayer. You appeal to the Old Testament. And here, before I ex- amine the particularinstanccsyou have quoted, let me recall to the public mind a memorable statement which you made in 'Sermons on the Church,' and which, though I took special notice of it in ' Presbyterianism Defended,' you have somehow passed over in total silence in your ' Letters.' It was to this effect— that the gift of inspired utterance was poured out in a richer flood under the Jewish dispensation than in the latter ayes of the church ,! * What think you now, sir, of this assertion standing out before you in all its naked absurdity ? " I am literally ashamed to transcribe it.'' I think you ought to be more ashamed to read it. What a deplorable exhibition docs it present of the extent and accuracy of your theological knowledge ' But I proceed. — To prove that we ought to pray to God in public worship by precomposed forms, you quote certain examples from llie Old Testament. These I shall now examine. The first is from the 26th chapter of Deutei oiioiny. At the beginning of that chapter we have one instance of a form, and another again at the 13th and following verses. Unfortu- nately, however, neither of them is any thing to the purpose. They were not intended to be used in the public devotions of the church, as any one Who reads them over will at once perceive. They were not prescribed for the Jews in their regular ordinary worship, and therefore they make nothing for your argu- ment. Your second alleged precedent for forms is taken from 1 Kings, viii, 17, and is, if possible, * Se« Sermons on the Church, p. 84 still less to the purpose than the first. You tell us that in this passage Solomon is com- posing a form of confession, which confession we find introduced in the 106th Psalm. We do, sir, undoubtedly, find this, but we find also that the author of the psalm entirely changes and greatly adds to the formula left on record by Solomon. So little does he confine him- self to this " Captivity Litany," as you child- ishly term it, that he expands to forty-eight verses what Solomon had comprised in one. This is certainly a curious example of a pre- scribed and unchanging form. But you tell us that Daniel, in his 9th chap- ter, " disdained not to use the very words of this confession." In the first place, I have to remind you that Daniel's prayer there recorded is a private one, consequently it will not suit you. Besides, I have read it carefully over, and I find that in no part of it does the prophet quote the exact words of Solomon, and that so •far from limiting himself to these, or in any way availing himself of the admirable confes- sion already prepared to his hand in the 106th Psalm, he frames and puts up to heaven another and a different one,better adapted to the peculiar state and wants of the church, at that particu- lar period of her history. These, sir, are no proofs of restricted prayer. They are the very contrary. They are instances of free prayer, varying according to the different states and exigencies of the church and of her members. You next refer to the few words recorded in Numbers, vi, 23. These contain the form of benediction which the priest was commanded by God to pronounce over his people Israel. But, what has this to do with the question ? You cannot but know, that in our worship, we regularly use a scriptural form of benediction ourselves. To adduce this passage, therefore, in support of your theory, is just to insinuate that every presbytcrian controversialist who, up to the present time, has written against it, has been constantly sanctioning by his prac- tice the very system which he was opposing with his pen. In other words, that all who have hitherto thought they were contending against forms, have been In reality advocates of forms. Is not that a modest insinuation:' Can you fail to see that the fact of God's ap- pointing a benediction to be used over ancient I rael, will never warrant a bodj of fallible men now in prescribing all the prayers of the Christian church, and in determining that in these only and unvaryingly s1k.11 her members at all times address their Maker? The truth is, that even the scriptural benedictions, dic- tated and prescribed as they were by God himself, are not always expressed in the one Way. In the New Testament they are differ- ently worded in different places. And of this latitude we avail ourselves. But your prayers are fixed — in sentiment and phraseology alike changeless and unaltering. In no point of view, therefore, can you obtain any precedent for them in the forms of benediction recorded in Scripture. Let me now advert to your argument from 2 B 210 FORMS OF PRAYER.— NO EVIDENCE the Book of Psalms. You bring forward as an instance of a form, (and as it is the only one you select, I presume you think it the best and most appropriate,) the psalm sung at the introduction of the ark into the tabernacle. This you yourself call a psalm, and yet you immediately afterwards tell us it was a form of prayer. This sounds somewhat strange — but let us look to the passage itself, in 1 Chron. 16th chapter. At the 7th verse we read, " then on that day David delivered first this psalm, to thank the Lord, into the hands of Asaph and his brethren." Then at the 9th verse ; " sing unto him, sing psalms unto him," &c. But all this it seems was a solemn prayer ! And let us mark the singular accompaniments with which it was offered up. We read at the 5th verse that there were employed, " psalte- ries and harps, and Asaph made a sound with cymbals; Benaiahalso andJahaziel the priests with trumpets continually." And this you tell us with a grave face was a public prayer, ex- tracted from the service-book of ancient Is- rael ! Do you not see, sir, that in this illus- tration you have here adduced, and in the language you use respecting it, you are either unconsciously or designedly confounding the terms of the question ? You know well," that against such kind of prayer as maybe implied in using certain forms of singing, we have no controversy. Our objection is to forms of prayer as that phrase is commonly understood, namely, against such prayers as are offered up by a minister in a prescribed fixed method, and which prayers are not inspired, but of human origin, not sung but spoken. This you cannot but know, and yet you here bring for- ward as an instance of a form of prayer, a psalm sung with the accompaniments of mu- sical instruments by Asaph and his brethren ! This, sir, is not reasoning. It is quibbling. You say, thac a clear proof that this psalm was regarded as a form of prayer is, that Hezekiah " centuries afterwards, restored it to its place in the service-book." Service-book ! you seem to think, from your mode of speaking, that the ancient Israelites were blessed with common prayer-books like your own. It is rather odd, however, is it not, that the Old Testament never speaks a syllable about them? But as to what Hezekiah did in this matter, the reader will find it stated in 2 Chron. 29th chapter. We there learn, that though the king did not restore a prayer to the service-book, simply because he had never heard of that interesting volume, yet he did order a certain psalm to be sung in words which David and Asaph had already used. " He set the Levites, it is said, in the house of the Lord with cymbals, and psalteries, and harps." — "And he commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord, with the words of David and of Asaph the seer — and they sang praises with gladness." To assert that this was a form of prayer, an instance of the church addressing prayer to God in a fixed liturgy, is to confound the meaning of language and out- rage common sense. I think I may now dismiss this argument from the Psalms. It yields you no support whatever. There is no doubt that these sacred compositions were designed to be sung in pub- lic worship. In this manner we use them. Even supposing, however, you could show that some of them were employed as forms of prayer, in the proper sense of that expression, you could never, from such a circumstance, obtain a precedent for your liturgy. For you would still require to prove that these were used statedly, in the ordinary public worship of the Jewish church. And you would require to explain, besides, how the fact, (supposing it were a fact,) of divinely-inspired prophets prescribing divinely-inspired prayers to the ancient Jews, warrants the Church of Eng- land in imposing humanly-invented forms on modern Christians. This I defy you or any man to prove, and until this is done nothing is proved. I have thus made it plain, that no satisfac- tory argument can be brought from the Old Testament for forms of prayer. So far from the people of God under the ancient dispensa- tion conducting their worship in this manner, it is perfectly easy to show that the great ma- jority of their prayers were in the strictest sense free, suggested by, and adapted to, the varying circumstances in which they were placed. In proof of this, I refer to the follow- ing instances among many, namely, the prayer of Solomon, * of Asa, f of Jehoshaphat, + of Hezekiah, § of Ezra, || and of the Levites. ^ I forbear to quote these lengthened passages in full ; but the reader, in referring to them and examining them carefully, will find that they are all striking examples of unrestricted supplication, and consequently that there could have been then no stated forms enjoined on the church in which they were used. Nor can we fail to see, that the adoption of such prayers by the ancient Jews in public worship fur- nishes a very cogent argument against forms. For, if ever there had been a liturgy intended for the use of the church, we may suppose it would have been given under the ancient economy. Then (it is admitted by all except the Rev. Mr. Boyd) the gifts of the Holy Spirit were far less generally and abundantly poured out, than under the New Testament. It might naturally have been presumed, therefore, that at such a time the aid of forms would have been more especially required. When, how- ever, we find that even then the people wor- shipped God,in the great majority of instances, in extemporary addresses, conceived at the moment, and varying with the circumstances in which those who uttered them were placed, we are constrained to believe that Old Testa- ment practice is not in favour of liturgies, but rather teaches, that while God has not alto- gether prohibited, in certain cases, the use of forms, yet extemporaneous supplication is the mode which his Spirit recommends to the church. * 1 Kings, viii, 22. t 2 Chron. xx, 5. II Ezra, ix,5. + 2 Chron. xiv, 11. f 2 Kings, xix, 14. 11 Nehem. ix, 5. OF THEIR EXISTENCE IN THE TIME OF CHRIST. 211 I now proceed to examine your assertion, that liturgies were used by the Jews in the time of Christ. You are very indignant that I have taken the liberty to express some doubts on this subject. I am concerned to say that these, so far from being removed, are mightily increased since I have read your - letter. In entering on this subject, let me premise these two considerations. Even were it true that forma were used by the ancient Jews, unless you are able to show that these were enjoined by human authority, and were never on any account allowed to be deviated from in the slightest particular, you gain no justifying precedent whatever for your liturgy. Again, the fact of our Lord's being present when, as you assert, these forms were used, can never be made to prove that he sanctioned them. You lay great stress on this circumstance ; but it is (as I have already told you) very ab- surd to do so. For are we to imagine, that when Christ attended on the service of the synagogue, he fully approved of every part of it which he did not single out and reprehend? Was there nothing in the priests or in the people, in the matter or manner of their de- votions, throughout the whole routine of their public worship that he disliked, though we may not find him expressly condemning it ? Yet your whole argument rests on that as- sumption. But now as to the question, Whether such forms did actually exist in the time of Christ? I demanded proof of this. You have not at- tempted to give any. All that you have done is, to shelter yourself behind some great names. Your mode of proving that these ancient litur- gies existed in the time of Christ, and have been handed down to the present day, is tell- ing us that some learned men, amongst others Lightfoot, Hall, 1'rideaux, and Ussher, have said so. This, sir, may do for you; you may have so disciplined your mind, that it is ready slavishly to acquiesce in every tiling a bishop or an archbishop proclaims; but, let me tell you, that it will not do with presbyterians. We require evidence ; and we will take no man's dictum in place of it. And surely you cannot need to be reminded, that documents which are now generally ad- mitted to be spurious, have had their claims as learnedly investigated and as strenuously supported as ever were those of the pretended Jewish liturgies, and that by men of acknow- ledged integrity and erudition. Have we not all heard of liturgies in the church bearing the names of St. Peter, St. .lames, and St. .Mark ; and do we not know, that there are extant canons and constitutions asserted to have been drawn Qp by the apostles? These have been pleaded for with great confidence, and their claims vindicated with lunch power of argu- ment, by many writers of distinguished ability. Yet who now admits the genuineness and authenticity of these confessedly ancient litur- gies and canons t Who would \ intmv to haz- ard his literary reputation, by affirming that Peter, and James, and Mark wrote the docu- ments with which their names are respectively associated, and in conjunction with the rest of the apostles framed those canons and consti- tutions of which they are the reputed authors? You will thus see, sir, that it is a very dubious kind of evidence (if it can be called evidence at all) on which you rest your belief, that there were fixed liturgies in use among the Jews. You rest it upon the assertion of some learned men of your own church, whose predilections, we may suppose, would render them by no means undesirous of finding out such prece- dents for their own fixed forms, if there was any possibility of doing so. Among the au- thorities you quote, you mention " that prodigy of oriental learning, archbishop Ussher." Why, sir, I am led to think that his testimony is the least valuable of all. What do you tell us of him yourself, in another part of your book ? Mr. Killen had taken occasion to refer to a statement, that he (Ussher) had made, favour- able to presbyterianism. You reply, that " if he did say what was imputed to him, it is only an instance of the fact, that the greatest and most learned men are liable to fall into mis- takes ; and assuredly this was the case with respect to Ussher." I have to inform you, that Mr. Killen has now demonstrated, that the archbishop did make the statement imputed to him. Consequently he must have fallen into a mistake, and that must have been a very great mistake indeed; foryou yourself declare, that the words of Jerome (the author whom he had been quoting and commenting on,) do not at all support the inference he drew from them. So that here we have this " prodigy of oriental learning " convicted of a gross error, and found blundering in the interpretation of a passage from an ancient father, which very passage is fully comprehended and clearly expounded by — whom ? — the Rev. Archibald Boyd ! I ask you, sir, is it not thus plain, on your own show- ing, that if we are to believe in these Jewish liturgies, on the authority of any man, we cau place but little dependence on that of Ussher? You have garnished your pages, by extract- ing from the work of Dr. Lightfoot a great number of prayers, which he stn/s were used in the temple service. No doubt he sai/s so ; but would it not have been better to inform us what grounds he had for saying so? I cannot conceive of any thing in the shape of argu- mentation more silly, than to copy a string of prayers, which a certain author says were used by the Jews in the time of Christ, in order to prove that these identical prayers then actually existed. You say that it would prolong your argu- ment (!) too much to introduce in the text the liturgy used in the synagogue service. You promise to give it to as however in the appen- dix, a promise Which, somehow, you have omitted to performi You tell us there indeed that this service consisted principally of the eighteen prayers of Ezra, hut you do not quote them in full. (By the way, you must have lost one of these, for you said there were nineteen, in ' Sermons on the Church.') But I will now 212 FORMS OF PRAYER.— ALLEGED EXTANT. proceed to show the reader (and to this I claim his and your special attention,) what those grounds are on which Lightfoot, Prideaux, and others, have ventured to assert that "fragments of ihe Jewish liturgy of the time of Christ are still extant." You say, " I cannot be expected to go into the proofs that have induced them to agree on this." Why, sir, what else are you expected to do ? Do you suppose we will take your or their " ipse dixit" for the matter? I find I must " supply your lack of service." Well, what is the authority on which these learned men arrive at the important conclusion above stated ? On that, worthy reader, of the ' Mishna.' But I hear you ask me, Pray, what is the Mishna? Why, it is a mass of ancient Jewish traditions, which Home * says, " they pretend were delivered to Moses, during his abode on the mount," and which, Dr. Prideaux himself tells us, " by individuals continually adding their own imaginations to what they had received from those that went before them, became as a snow-ball ; the farther they rolled down from one generation to another, the more they gathered, and the greater the bulk of them grew." " And thus," says he, " it went on to the middle of the second century after Christ, when it became necessary to put all these tra- ditions into writing. For they were then grown to so great a number, and enlarged to so huge a heap as to exceed the possibility of being any longer preserved by the memory of men." f And accordingly, he tells us a cer- tain Rabbi, Jehudah, collected and compiled them in six books, each consisting of several tracts, and altogether making up the number of sixty-three. This compilation, he asserts, was published in the year of our Lord 150; but Dr. Lardner and Dr. Lightfoot say it ap- peared in 190, while other learned men date its publication much later — in the beginning, or towards the middle of the third century. Whensoever it appeared, one thing is certain, on the testimony of Prideaux himself, that it is the " ancientest book the Jews have." Here, then, we have at last arrived at the source and fountain-head of evidence respecting these mysterious liturgies. From the Mishna, and from it alone, can any information on the subject be derived. That is, from a book published nobody knows when, but most probably to- wards the close of the second century, or be- ginning of the third, compiled by superstitious Jewish doctors, and stuffed with endless tra- ditions and " imaginations," which had been gathering like a snow-ball from age to age; from this authentic and trust-worthy volume, we are informed, we may obtain proofs of facts and events occurring in the time of our Lord, and out of its veracious pages, have the privi- lege of extracting " true copies " of those so- lemn prayers, through the medium of which Jesus worshipped the Father! Credat Ju- daeus ! Not only, it is thus plain, is the external evidence totally worthless on which the asser- * Introduction, vol. ii, p. 417. + Prideaux's Connexions, vol. ii, pp. 313, 314. tion about extant liturgies of the time of Christ is founded, but I shall now show, from the ad- mission of Dr. Prideaux himself, that the in- ternal evidence is just as dubious and unsatis- factory. He says, "the Shemoneh Eshreh, or eighteen prayers, were, they say, composed and instituted by Ezra and the great synagogue." They say, indeed! I would ask Dr. Prideaux, if they were actually written by Ezra, why are they not in the Bible ? But let that pass. Here is the Doctor's fatal admission, which utterly damages and destroys the internal evi- dence of their genuineness. He says,* "it must be acknowledged that some of these prayers seem to have been composed after the destruction of Jerusalem, and to have reference to it, especially the 10th, 11th, 14th, and 17th." That is, good reader, some of these famous prayers, in the opinion of this learned Theban, bear all the marks of having been written seventy years after the time in which they are alleged to have been regularly used in the synagogue ! Or, in other words, there are strong grounds to suspect that they are neither more nor less than absolute forgeries. But T would ask, if some of these prayers be thus discredited, how shall we establish the genu- ineness of the others ? If four are, in all probability, forgeries, how shall we be certain as to the remaining fourteen ? May not some, nay, may not the whole of them, be spurious also ? Such, sir, is the warrant on which we are expected to believe, with all our might, that there are now extant Jewish liturgies which were used in the time of Christ. We demand proof, we can get none. We ask for indubitable evidence of the fact, but instead of that we are treated to a ' Sketch of the temple service, as taken from the learned work of Dr. Lightfoot, ' and are furthermore gravely in- formed that Dr. Prideaux has said, that the chief part of the synagogue service consisted of eighteen prayers, which are said to have been composed by Ezra, and that of these, there is every reason to think, a considerable number are sheer impositions. Reverend sir, this will not do. Rest assured that this kind of argumentation will not convince the most credulous, far less induce reflecting Christians to believe that there are now in existence li- turgic forms in which worship was conducted in the time of our Saviour. I have already shown, that even if it could be demonstrated that such forms were used in the regular worship of the Jews, while our Lord attended on it, there would be no fair or certain inference deducible thence as to his approval of it. All that could be concluded in that case would be, that in that particular age of the Jewish church, when its whole constitution was on the eve of being abolished, he did not deem it necessary expressly to condemn them. But this would never w r arrant us to decide that he approved of such a mode of worship for the Christian church, and this, be it remembered, is the main point at issue. Even supposing it * Prideaux's Connexions. JEWISH LITURGIES.— THE LORD'S PRAYER. 213 could be shown that he sanctioned forms of prayer for the Jews, (a thing which has never yet been done, and which we are satisfied never will be done,) it is impos- sible to deduce that he commends them to our adoption. To justify us in drawing such an inference, we must be prepared to show that this element of the worship of Judaism, which, it is alleged, met his approbation, he took oc- casion tn embody in the Christian system; that those fixed forms, the propriety of which he is said to have recognised among his people Is- rael, he used means to introduce into the gos- pel church to be observed by its members throughout all succeeding ages. Did he do this ? Did he prepare or instruct his apostles to prepare a liturgy for the Christian church ? Did he, in aught that he said or did through- out the whole of his ministry, give the slightest reason to believe that he wished his people in this manner to worship God? No such thing. The very reverse is the case. This is my po- sition, and this position it will now be my busi- ness to establish and maintain. You affirm that the fact of the Lord's prayer being left on record is evidence that Christ approved of forms for the Christian church. The first argument you advance to show that this prayer was prescribed as a form is, " that the words of our Lord are express, ' when ye pray, say Our Father, ' " Sec. This, in your opinion, makes it certain that he intended us to use his exact expressions in our worship. Now, in what place, let us ask, does the com- mand thus expressed occur? In Luke's Gos- pel. But in the prayer there recorded we find numerous verbal variations from the same prayer as recorded by Matthew. It contains, for instance, neither the doxology nor the amen. If then your argument were good for any thing, would it not bind us to the ipsissima verba of Luke, and prevent us from ever adopting the form handed down to us by the other inspired historian ? But farther, that your argument is utterly futile is evident if we reflect that when Christ uses this language, "when ye pray, Bay Our Father," &c, he is merely speaking el- liplically, meaning, when ye pray, do so in this manner or to this purpose. Nothing is more common than such a style in Scripture. Tims in Matt, x, 7, our Lord, in giving their com- mission to the twelve, thus addresses them : "As ye go, preach, saying, the kingdom of heaven is at hand. " According to your rea- soning, the intention of Christ hero was that his apostles, in delivering their message, were always to use these words. This was a form of preaching he prescribed for them. Would it not In' ridiculons to put such an interpre- tation on his words.' Is not his meaning plain, that after this manner they were to preach — that this was to he the sum and substance of their preaching— just as when lie thus addres- ses his disolples: " When ye pray, say Our Father," See, his meaning is, let your prayers be modelled after this pattern and embody these subjects? Your only other shadow of argument to show that the Lord's prayer was prescribed as a form is, that the primitive church used it as such. But it is necessary you should show that they always did so. If any instance can be brought in which they did not thus employ it, jour argument goes for nothing. Now what is the fact ? Why, as I have already shown, that we have frequent examples of the primi- tive Christians praying, without the Lord's prayer being either prefixed or annexed to their petitions. Thus, Sir Peter King notes with respect to a prayer of Polycaip, that the Lord's prayer is neither at the beginning nor ending * Thus, again, Origen, prescribing a method of prayer, speaks not a word of the Lord's prayer, but advises both to begin and end with a doxology. f And Clemens Alex- andiinus concludes his last book of Pedagogus with a prayer which neither begins nor ends with the Lord's prayer. Many additional in- stances to these might be given. But it is un- necessary. The point is of no importance whatever. Even if it were true that the primi- tive church on every occasion, without excep- tion, used this prayer as a form, that would be no evidence that our Lord intended it as such. 1 have shown, however, that they prayed with- out this form as well as with it, and therefore the phantom of a proof you attempt to conjure up from this circumstance vanishes into thin air. Let me now proceed to lay before you the solid grounds on which I rest my conviction that the Lord's prayer was designed not so much as a fixed form to which we are to ad- here, as a platform of supplication — a pattern after which we are to construct and arrange our petitions. In the first place, I would pre- mise that if you succeed in proving it to be a form, you prove too much. For it would fol- low that we should confine ourselves to it ex- clusively. If our Lord presented it to the church as a divinely-inspired and perfect for- mula for her use, why should she then presume to disfigure it by humanly-invented additions? Again, this prayer is differently worded in different passages in which it occurs in the New Testament. Luke's version of it presents considerable variation from that of -Matthew. It is plain from this that the Ifolv Spirit did not design to teach the church, and Unit the evangelists did not understand our Lord as teaching thai men, in this matter of player, weir to be bound down to words and syllables. \ i 1 1 1 tiiis was the lif,'ht in which Calvin viewed tlie Lord's prayer. " The Son of God, " says he, " did not determine the exact words that were to be used, so that from that form which he dictated it would be unlaw l'ul to depart, but rather wished so to direet and regulate our desires that they should not wander beyond these boundaries ; whenofl we inter, that the rule of praying rightly which he has given us consists not in word* but in tl/iin/s." [ Farther, this prayer contains no express mention of the name or work of Christ You affect to speak slightingly of this circumstance ; * Enquiry into constitution nf Piini. Ch. par. ii,p.2S- ♦ De Orat. « lalv. in Matt. vi,9, ft I.uc. xi, I. 214 FORMS OF PRAYER.— NOT USED but I am satisfied that the judicious and re- flecting Christian will be disposed to think that a form of words in which there is found no specific reference to the mediation or interces- sion of the Redeemer could not have been de- signed to be the perpetual and unchanging vehicle of the aspirations of the gospel church. Farther, in the conversation which arose from the request of his disciples, Christ ex- pressly enjoins them to address to the Father requests which are not comprehended in this formula. The condition and the promise — " Ask, and ye shall receive," refer immediately to the readiness of God to " give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him." Surely, this petition is not less important than any of those that are comprised in the Lord's prayer, aud would not have been omitted, if that had been designed as a perfect model. This considera- tion is, on your hypothesis, perfectly inexpli- cable. I shall mention one other consideration, by which the preceding reasoning is abundantly strengthened and confirmed. In all the public ministrations mentioned in the New Testament, we never find this prayer employed. Is not this strange ? Is it not singular, if it was to be a fixed form for public devotion, that the apostles never once used it, or gave it the war- rant of their adoption ? You think that there is nothing remarkable in this ; hut I have to inform you that some very wise men and great critics field a widely different opinion. Gro- tius has expressly said, with reference to this prayer, " that Christ did not command the words to be recited, but that we should take the materials of our prayers thence." And what is the reason he gives ? — " That though it may be used with great profit, as a form, or in the very words, yet we do not read that ever the apostles used it so." To the same purpose Maldonatus says, in commenting on the Lord's prayer, as recorded in Matthew — " Not neces- sarily with these words are we to pray, but with this or similar meaning; for we never read that the apostles were in the habit of praying in these exact words." * And the Rev. Thomas Scott, in his commentary on the same passage, thus speaks : — " It may often be proper to use the very words, but it is not always necessary ,• for we do not find that the apostles thus used it. But we ought always to pray after the manner of it," &c. These, sir, are "scholar- like conclusions." There is a great deal of weight, you see, after all, in the circumstance that our Lord's inspired followers never used this prayer in their public ministrations. You intimate that they may possibly have done so, and yet no accounts have been left on record of the fact. But we have an account of many other prayers which they offered up; and I maintain, that had the one our Lord taught them been so imperative as you represent it, and been prescribed by him as a fixed and stated form for the church, it is inconceivable that they would not, in some one instance, have adopted it. That they never thought of in- * Maldonat. iu Matt, vi, 9. troducing it either separately or in combination with their other recorded addresses to a throne of grace, is unquestionably a Tery convincing proof that they regarded it as a pattern rather than a form. And thus, sir, presbyterians regard it. For the reasons I have mentioned, among others, they hold, that though it may be occasionally used in public worship with much propriety as a form, yet it was rather delivered by Christ for the purpose of affording us direction in prayer. This is the testimony of our stand- ards, though you very absurdly quote from the Larger Catechism, as if its teaching were at variance with what I have advanced. What does it say ? " The special rule of direction is that form of prayer which Christ taught his disciples." Again — " The Lord's prayer is not only for direction as a pattern, but may also be used as a prayer, so that it be done with understanding." Now, what is the meaning of all this ? Does not the Church of Scotland here declare her view of the Lord's prayer to be, that it is mainly intended for direction, but may occasionally be used as a form. This is precisely what I have been contending for all along, in so many words. You uphold the opposite theory, not merely that this prayer is lawful, or may occasionally be employed, but that it is a fixed form which ouyht never be omitted in public worship, and the observance of which the church has a right to enforce on all her members. This I have shown you is a position which is utterly untenable. I have laid before you the arguments by which I have proved its untenableness. Youhavenot hitherto invalidated these in a single point. I venture to predict that you never will. And now, sir, before I proceed to examine the evidence from antiquity., allow me to put to you a few simple questions. I have put them before, but alas ! in vain. Let me ask you, then, do you seriously believe that in the many examples of social prayer recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, the worship was con- ducted by the aid of forms ? After our Lord's ascension, for example, we read that the dis- ciples " all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication." Does this mean that they were exceedingly diligent in reciting over cer- tain precomposed petitions ? Again, on the solemn occasion of appointing a candidate to the vacant apostleship, we are told they pray- ed and said, " thou Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen," &c. Was this prayer part of a liturgy then existing, or is the supposition very extravagant that it was conceived and ut- tered at the moment? You have, doubtless, often perused that sublime supplication record- ed in Acts iv. 24 — 30. Do you— can you be- lieve that that magnificent effusion, so season- able in its appeals, so exactly adapted to the perilous position in which the church was then placed, had been long previously composed, and was now carefully read out of a book by the apostles ? You have often thought, also, I am satisfied, with feelings of tender sympathy, Oil SANCTIONED BY THE APOSTLES. 215 of the afflicted condition of the infant church when vexed by the persecuting Horod. You may remember how it is said on the occasion of Peter being cast into prison by the tyrant, " that prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him." May I enquire whether it is your opinion that these prayers of the church were offered up to heaven by the aid of forms ? And that of these ready- made forms there were some that exactly ap- plied to the exigencies of this fearful crisis ? That in one passage of the existing liturgy, for instance, they found a formula of interces- sion for their incarcerated brother, and in an- other a petition that the Most High would con- found the devices of the tyrant ? What a wonderful liturgy must this have been — how far-sighted the sagacity — how comprehensive the genius of its composers ! And how happy these primitive Christians, that amid their many and fierce trials they possessed such a precious boon ; that they were " at no man's mercy," when they went to pray ; that secure in the " dignified simplicity " and " ma- jestic calmness " of their prayer-book, they were " neither urged forward with the impetu- osity of the hurricane, nor becalmed in the dulness of ministerial impotency. "! — But, really, sir, this is altogether too ridiculous. You surely must feel that every single instance of social prayer recorded in the Acts of the Apostles is directly in the teeth of your system. But if the practice of the apostles be thus, as we have seen, against forms of prayer, their writings will be found to bear a similar testi- mony. What is the meaning of Paul when he exhorts the members of the church in this re- markable language, " to pray always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit " ? What do we suppose to be his desire, when we find his epistles abounding with requests to the churches that" they would strive together with him in their prayers to God for him " ? Does he mean that they were to present constantly one set of requests, couched in one unaltering form of words ? Or, does he not rather inti- mate that they might introduce what suppli- cations they thought proper? — There is a strik- ing passage in I Corinthians, 11th chapter, which seems to me to he wholly irreconcilable with tiie supposition that lixed liturgies were enjoined on the church in the age of the apos- tles. The apostle is speaking of praying in the church in unknown tongues, lie Bays, "where ■ fore, let him that speakelh in an unknown tongue pray that lie may interpret;" or, as Macknight explains it, " so as that some one may interpret his meaning." He goes on; "Else when thou shall Mess with the Spirit, how shall he that occupielh the room of the unlearned say amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayesl "? Now, here we are led to ask, how could these teachers pray in a foreign language, if the church was then tied to certain fixed forms? If it be said thai they prayed o\er these very forma though in an unknown tongue, then we may inquire, where was the use of their mean ing being interpreted ? Could not the people know perfectly well what was going on if it were the case that they had their prayer books before them ? Does it not appear manifest from the latter expressions of the passage, that the usual practice of the people then was to follow the leading of the individual praying, and to arrive at the comprehension of his meaning by a careful attention to his words ? The apostle implies that the people were able tojoiniuthe petitions and thanksgivings of- fered up, by " understanding" what was said. But this was by no means indispensable if they were supplied with forms. In that case, whe- ther they understood what was uttered or not, they could look to their prayer books and be edified. We might easily show, did our limits permit us to go into the subject at length, that this 14th chaper of 1st Corinthians presents insurmountable difficulties to the advocates of liturgies. On the whole, we have thus far established this point, that our Lord neither prescribed nor sanctioned forms of prayer, and that his apostles, so far from recognising their " pecu- liar propriety," both in precept and in prac- tice disavowed them, and gave on all occasions their decided testimony in favour of free prayer. I shall now examine your testimonies from Christian antiquity. In approaching this part of the subject, you betray a manifest con- sciousness, that on the ground you are about to tread, your footing is most insecure, that the support you may expect to derive from this quarter is of the most dubious character. You say, that at first " the churches were tos- sed by successive tempests of trouble, and a complete systematic form of public prayer could scarcely be looked for till the days of agitation had passed away." You have, I do assure you, sir, my most cordial assent to this statement. No one can be more firmly con- vinced than I am, that in the first centuries a form of prayer " could scarcely be looked for," or if looked for, will be sought in vain. 1 1 was not till (as you remark,) " the days of agitation had passed away," and till (as I would add,) the era of clerical ignorance and laziness arose, that fixed liturgies were imposed on the church. The idea is so well expressed by Ca- pellus, in a passage which I quoted ill mj 'lis Course, that I shall here take the trouble to transcribe it for your edification. "Prescribed liturgies," says this eminent authority, " were unknown in the apostolic and succeeding ages, ami were notintroduced till those persecutions ceased which kept alive the zeal of primitive Christians, and till, through the favour of Christian emperors, the number of Christians increased, but the fervour of true piety was allayed. And then they were gradually in- troduced for the use of simple and unlearned ministers, who through their sloth were unfur- nished with gifts, and through tlnir ignorance, in danger of venting such unsound notions as subtile heretics might in-til into them." Your first testimony is from Clement. You tell me of certain statements he has made in hit ' Stromata.' Why do you not mention the 216 FORMS OF PRAYER ALLEGED PROOFS FROM ANTIQUITY.— CLEMENT. place in which these alleged statements occur? I have searched through the ' Stroinata,' hut cannot find them. Did you feel that in this case a " reference was not desirable " ? Had you any latent suspicions that the passage, if examined in the original, would not at all war- rant the interpretation you attempt to fix on it? But taking the passage as you have given it, let us see what its testimony is. Clement is represented as calling the church " the con- gregation of those who prostrated themselves in prayer, having, as it were, one common voice." And what then ? Does it therefore follow that the whole church had one common prayer-book ? Why, in any of our presbyte- rian churches, when prayer is offering up, it might be said with perfect propriety that the whole congregation have, " as it were, one common voice," the voice of him who leads or conducts their devotions. The' apostle Paul exhorts the members of the church " with one mind and with one mouth to glorify God." Would any one infer, from the use of this lan- guage, that the Christians at Rome must there- fore, of necessity, have had a fixed liturgy ? You allege that Clement speaks besides of a form of supplication used over the penitents, at the close of* which are these words, " that they may receive angelical absolution." How, you ask, could he know that these latter ex- pressions would be used if there had not been forms in the church at that time ? I answer, that in the presbyterian church there are forms of expression of greater length than those you mention also regularly used. There is always a benediction, for example, at the close of our service. Does this prove that we have a litur- gy ? Would it be rational to argue thus ; how could one know the expressions in this bene- diction, or be aware that they would be used, if there were not fixed forms in the church ? It is remarkable that you do not tell us what the " form of supplication used over the peni- tents" was. You rest your whole argument on the fact, that at the close of it occur these six words, " that they may receive angelical absolution." You do not explain to us whether the preacher was obliged to use these words, to use them every time public worship was celebrated, and to use them without the slightest variation. No : the single fact that these six cabalistical words were, according to Clement, said on certain special occasions over the penitents, is to prove that the whole Christian church, in his time, offered up all her prayers in precom- posed forms, was compelled to use these whether she disliked them or not, and was never al- lowed to deviate from them in the slightest particular ! Truly, sir, this is most pitiable. And yet this is all the support that can be got from Clement. Had those episcopalian writers, from whom you have gathered, been able to find another scrap in all his works giving even the semblance of countenance to their system, we may be sure they would not have failed to bring it forward. Whether the two you have here referred to are of any avail to support it, or in fact have any bearing at all on the ques- tion of fixed liturgies, I leave it to the com- mon sense of every reader to determine. Your next authority is Tertullian. You quote a long passage which, you sa}', is from the 39th chapter of his ' Apology. ' Here, sir, I am able to convict you of a deliberate fraud, or, of what perhaps you will consider far worse, that is, not quoting from the originals. What is the fact ? Why, that about the half of the passage which you quote as a continuous whole is from the 39th chapter, and the other half from the 30th ! The first half ends with these words, " we pray. . . for the peace of their gov- ernment and for the continuance of the em- pire. " This part is contained in the 39th chapter. Immediately after the sentence ending thus, and as if it were the succeeding one penned by Tertullian, you have a long sentence, beginning thus : M We pray for em- perors, that they might have a long life," &c. Now that sentence, which you represent as also contained in the 39th chapter, and as im- mediately following the other, is found, un- happily for you, in the 30th, in a totally different connexion. How, sir, is this to be accounted for ? An additional evidence that you could not have consulted the original passage, I discover in this slight circumstance that you have left out two words towards the end of the last sentence. You represent Ter- tullian as saying, " that their families might be safe, their armies valiant, their people vir- tuous, and the world at peace," whereas, be- tween the two phrases, " their armies valiant," and " their people virtuous," he has this ex- pression, " their senate faithful."* This clause you have omitted, and this, combined with the fact that you have quoted the whole passage as from the 39th chapter, though nearly the half of it is from the 30th, convinces me that you could not have seen the original, but must have betaken yourself to some episco- palian " popular furnishing treatise." But here again I am perplexed, for you inform us in your preface that you have been careful not to take your quotations from second-hand sources. How has it come to pass, then, that you have garbled and mutilated this testimony of Tertullian ? I am confounded. Extricate me, I pray you, from this dilemma. But let us examine now what the sum of his testimony is. He represents the Christians in his time as praying for the emperors, for their officers and powers, for the state of the world, for the peace of their government, &c. * But I can say precisely the same with regard to the public worship of presbyterians. It is quite usual with our ministers to pray for the sovereign and for all who are in authority, for the stability of the throne, the godliness of the people, and the peace of the world. These topics are constantly recurring in their public devotions, and in whatever mode expressed, are, I presume, never omitted. But does it therefore follow that presbyterians rejoice in a liturgy? Does it therefore follow that they * Senatum fidelem. TERTULLIAN.— ORIGEN. 217 have a set form of words imposed on tliem by church governors from which they are never allowed to depart ? Is this, sir, a "scholar- like conclusion P " You say, you have another reason for believ- ing that the foregoing extract from Tertullian was pari of the ancient liturgies. What is it? i Because in the 8th book of the 'Apostolic Constitutions,' in the liturgy called the Cle- mentine, there occurs a passage somewhat like it, which you quote. I may remark, first, that this excerpt you give from the so called Clementine liturgy, so Car from being identical with the one in Ter- tullian, neither begins nor ends like it, and contains various expressions entirely different. But why should I waste time in taking notice of an argument, pretended to be derived from the ' Apostolic Constitutions ' ? Can you be ignorant that this worthless compilation lias been long since given up as spurious? It is marvellous how a person of any reading could be unacquainted with this fact. I recommend you to procure and study Dupin, * and you will find the point there set at rest. In the mean time, let me quote for you the opinion of Mosheim : — " The learned are now unani- mous in regarding the other writings which bear the name of Clemens, namely, the Apos- tolical Canons, Apostolical Constitutions, the Recognitions of Clemens and Clementina, as spurious productions, ascribed by some im- postor to this venerable father, in order to pro- cure them a high degree of authority." f And this, sir, is the book on which you profess to depend for a corroboration of an argument ! This is the book, which, you say, " contains the communion service of one of the most an- cient liturgies in the world " ! Truly, sir, the man who makes such an assertion as this be- fore an enlightened community runs a very great risk of being laughed at. You refer next to Origin. You quote a passage from his homilies ; and in a note you have " 1 8th hom. in Jeremiam." I must in- form you that the passage you refer to is by no means contained in the 18th homily of this author on Jeremiah, from this unpleasant but indubitable fact, we of course draw the usual inference] that after all your bravadoing in the preface to your ' Letters,' you have not in almost any single instance consulted the "originals," but have quietly copied your quo tations from "popular furnishing treatises." • What is this passage Which yon say is in tin' eighteenth \ homily of Origen ? "\\ s fre- * SeeNouv. Qibliotb. torn. 1, p. 31. + Mosh. Keel. Hi«t.,cbap. ii. 1 I may remark thai Mr. Boyd, in a pamphlet pill). lished since the lirst edition ol the " I lea," called •■ Mis- representation Refitted," bat which should have been entitled, " Misrepresentation Continued," has hazarded two addition >l guesses at the locale of the passage men- tioned above. He haa asserted there that it is in the 2nd homily, and again that it is in the :4th, iHtb, 2nd, I Ith ! What next ? I have reason to hope that in bis nexl pub- lication, he will (as- Mr. Killen phrases it,} •• have iti.s- covered the fugiuve," and si Id my conjecture prove correct, it will afford a striking illustration of literary industry, and the persevering " pursuit of knowledge under dtllicullies." qucntly say in our prayers," says he, "Grant us, O Godj a portion with thy prophets — grant us a portion with thine apostles — grant that we may be found at the feet of thine only be- gotten Son." How does this serve you? Does this prove that they were always obliged to put up these identical requests, and were never allowed to vary in one jot or tittle the words in which they were coin eyed:' A prcsbyterian minister might use exactly similar language to that here attributed to Origen. He might say — " We frequently say- in our prayers, O Lord, grant us such and such requests." But surely it would be a very strange inference to draw from this, that therefore presbyterians have a fixed liturgy ! You say, that the Mag- deburg Centuriators thought this passage quite conclusive, as to the existence of forms in the church at that time; but as you have given us no account where that admission of theirs is recorded, I can hardly imagine that they could lnne made it — or, at all events, if they did, it would only prove (to use an expression of your own) that "very learned men some- times fall into very great mistakes." You give us from Origen another sentence, or rather half a sentence ; for you stop in the middle, leaving the sense unfinished. I do not say that you did this, in this instance, for tlie purpose of misrepresenting his testimony. I merely mention the circumstance, in order to keep you in mind of your sins about " the originals." I find that Origen adds to these words you have quoted — " The Christians used the ordered or prescribed prayers as became them continually, night and day," the follow- ing clause: — "whereby they were preserved against the power of magic and the devil." Now, supposing the word tuX a 'S to mean in this passage prayers, in a strict sense, it may lie asked, how does the fact of these being ordered, or, in other words, of the Christians at that time being required to engage regularly' in such devotional exercises — how does this prove that they were conducted by the aid ol' forms? And farther, it may lie asked, how- will this prove that though one or two, or more churches may have used these, yet that ell the churches throughout Christendom were then confined to them, and never on any occasion put up prayer to Cod in any other manner? Origin's statement, sir, will never prove this. Nay, so tar from serving you, when we exa- mine closely the connection in which it occurs, we are able to deduce from it a very strong inferential testimony against your system. He is referring to a charge advanced by Celsus against the Christians, that he had seen in the hands of BOl f the presbyters certain bar- barous books, containing the names of the devils ami their impostors. How, may we suppose, would it have been most likely that the ancient father would meet and repel this base calumnj ? He si>rai.s, i u big answer, of the prayers of the christians; and would it not have been natural that he should refer Celsus and till objectors, to the service-book in which these w ere contained '.' " You speak," 218 FORMS OF PRAYER.— CYPRIAN. COUNCIL OF he might have replied to the cavilling infidel, " of our having books which sanction magical enchantments. No — our prayers preserve us against the power of magic and the devil ; and if you question or deny my assertion, I appeal to the well-known volume in which they are contained." Does Origen speak thus? No such thing. He tells us of the Christians hav- ing prayers; but he drops not the remotest hint about a prayer-book. And from his marked and significant silence on this point, I draw the very reasonable inference, that as yet, in his day, such a " precious boon " had not been conferred upon the world. Your next witness is Cyprian. He says — "The minister before prayer prepares the hearts of the brethren, by premising a preface, and saying — ' Lift up your hearts,' — that whilst the people say — ' We lift them up to the Lord,' they may be admonished at that time to think of nothing but the Lord only." Permit me to ask you, is there any prayer recorded here at all? The minister addresses the people in a word or two of preface. Is that a supplication to the Almighty ? Why, the same thing occurs with us. It is the usual practice of the pres- byterian clergyman to commence the services of the Sabbath thus : " Let us compose our minds to worship God," or — " Let us, with becoming reverence, worship our Maker," or words to the same effect. Nor is it by any means uncommon, that an exhortation of a similar kind should be introduced at other parts of the service. Yet who would argue that this was evidence of our having a liturgy ? Before I pass from Cyprian, I may take oc- casion to inform you that, a few lines before the passage you have quoted from him, he commences a sentence thus : " When we stand at prayer." * May I ask you how it happens that, when you regard this father as such an authority on the subject of prayer, you differ from him so widely as to the posture in which it is offered up? Why do the members of the Church of England kneel? I wish that you, who profess such an unbounded reverence for antiquity, would explain why, in this matter, they are taught systematically to disregard the example of the primitive church ? I shall now take up your testimony from the council of LaoJicea. You have made a mistake about the year in which it was held. You are too early with it. In the account of the great councils published in 37 volumes at Paris, 1644, Labbe, in the margin, shows that it was held either under Liberius, anno 364, or under Damasus, 367. Bingham says, that some place it in 365, and others in 389. So that, arrived as we now are towards the close of the 4th century, when the church, it is admitted on all hands, had become disfigured by innu- merable corruptions, it would in no way affect the argument, even if it could be proved that such an innovation as set forms of prayer was introduced into its worship. But even at this late period, you have utterly failed in produc- ing any proof of their existence. The 15th * " Quando stamus ad orationem. " Canon of the council of Laodicea, you say, ordains " that none should chant in the church but those who went into the reading desk, and chanted from the book." What was this chant- ing ? I find that the word chant means some- thing very like singing. If all that you have to show us is that the twenty-two bishops as- sembled in this council (for Carranza tells us there were no more), were of opinion that the singing in church should be conducted in a particular manner, I can assure you that pres- byterians are quite disposed to agree with them. But you tell us farther, that the 18th Canon of this council orders that the same " liturgy of prayers shall be used at nones and vespers." Liturgy of prayers — are you sure that the word iu'xcov here signifies prayers, and not hymns or psalms ? It is much more probable that it signifies the latter than the former. That it is susceptible of this interpretation can be abundantly proved by testimonies from many of the fathers, among others from Ori- gen, Cyril, Hilary, Chrysostom, and Augustine. This has been admitted by episcopalians them- selves.* It is unquestionable, moreover, that such psalms or hymns were then, and had for a length of time, been in use in the church, as several other canons of this very council plainly attest. So that it is by no means un- likely, that the ordinance quoted gives direc- tions only as to the arrangements for singing in public worship, and conveys no reference to prayers at all. Supposing, however, that this word iv^uv signifies prayers in a strict sense, which I see no reason to believe, we are to enquire what is the meaning of the important word which is conjoined with it, Xurov^yiav. You translate it liturgy, conceiving no doubt, in your inno- cence, that it means precisely the same thing as the Church of England " liturgy." Just as the Rhemists, when they read those words of Luke, in Acts, xiii, 2, " XtiTau^yoiivTuv clutuv" gravely inform us that they should be render- ed, " as they were saying mass." But let us examine the word a little. We find it often used in the New Testament, with various sig- nifications attached to it. Never, however, in any one instance does it denote a form of pre- composed prayers, or any collection of such prayers. Its principal meaning is a public service or office, and it is usually applied to the exercises of religion. Thus in fleb. x, 1 1, it is said," every priest standeth daily, {xuTou^ycav), namely, not reading over any stated forms of prayer, but " officiating, ministering." Thus again in the passage already referred to, Acts, xiii, 2, the clause in which the vfordXiiTov^'yu'vTuv occurs, is properly rendered by our translators, " when they ministered to the Lord," &c. You will thus perceive that the word rendered K- turgy, as used in Scripture and by the fathers, admits of divers interpretations, and you are by no means to imagine that every time you meet with it in the writings of antiquity, you have stumbled on a common prayer-book. * See Bennett's Brief Hist. pp. 77, 78. LAODICEA. BASIL. 219 The council of Laodicea ordains that there shall be the same liturgy of prayers at after- noon and evening services. Supposing the in- junction to refer to prayers, in a strict sense, may we not understand its meaning to be that the same holy service or exercise of praying sliuiild be twice engaged in in the latter part <t»— Apol. ii, in fine, p. 162. JUSTICE MARTYR.-HERMAS.— TERTULLIAN. 221 to invalidate it, but all to no purpose. They say that probably Justin meant by the phrase "according to his ability" — according to the ardency of his desires ; but this, it will be at once seen, is most unlikely, for in that sense the expression would apply to the people as much as to the minister, and would not have been restricted to him. Besides, there is an- other place in his 'Apology,' in which this father uses this word Ijvafiii in the sense of ability. " Having therefore exhorted you as we are able, {Ian Iuvk/ui;) we shall he hence- forth blameless if you do not believe. "* Here his meaning is obvious. And in the passage under consideration, it is unquestionable that when he says, " the president oilers prayers according as he is able, " he testifies that in the church, at that early period, worship was conducted not according to any fixed imposed form, but in the manner now adopted by pres- byterians. The second authority whom I shall quote is Hernias. He has this language: "When a man who has the Spirit of God comes into the the church of just men, who have the faith of God, and prayer is made to God, then the holy messenger of the Divinity fills him with the Holy Spirit, and he speaks in the congregation as God irou/d have him."f "He speaks in the congregation as God would have him" — is it not taken for granted in this, that he en- joyed the liberty of unrestricted supplication, that he was not fettered by forms ? The third proof which I shall bring forward (I am not adhering exactly to chronological order,) is from Origen. He thus speaks of the manner of praying in his time. "We wor- ship," says he, "one God and his one Son, who is his woi'd and image, with supplications and honours according in our ability," And again, " but the Grecian Christians in Greek, the Romans in Latin, and every one in his own proper language, prays to God and praises him aaheisahle."\ The phrases which I have marked in Italics will at once direct you to the indubi- table proof which this father furnishes of the strength of my position and the untenableness of yours. And before I pass on to the next an- cient authority, it may be well to remind you that lord chancellor King, after quoting Ori- gen's comment on the injunction nol to use u vain repetitions, " has this judicious obser- vation ; " surels this caution had been nerd Less, of strictly observing the words thai thi j uttered, and litis fear had been groundless, of expressing themsi Ives indecently or sinfully, if they had a prayer book to recur to. " I refer now to Tertullian. Describing the public worship of the Christians, lie says, § " Looking iap to heaven they spread abroad their hands because innocent, with their heads uncovered because not ashamed, and without a monitor because the) prayed from the heart." I regard this passage as presenting unequivo- * Apol. ii. in line, p. 157. + Past |ib. ii. t Contr. Cel sum, lib. viii. pp. 36G — 102. l Apol. c. ao. cal evidence, that in Tertullian's days they had no liturgies. You attempt to disparage the evidence that it affords. I presume you could not have been aware, when you did so, of the recorded opinion of a bishop of your own church. Jeremy Taylor says, that " in some places single bishops, or perhaps other persons of less authority, did, in Tertullian's days, bring prayers of their own into the church. " And in support of this assertion he makes sine monitore and de pectore to mean, " de proprio ingenio, " of their own conception and ability. * This, or something like this, is undoubtedly not far from the correct interpre- tation of the words. You say that without a monitor signifies without a prompter, and that this may as well mean without a minister as without a form of prayer. Not so. Among the Romans at that time, the master of the exer- cises was called a monitor, and consequently, the minister who officiated was, in this sense, always considered the monitor of the congre- gation. So that Tertullian, in employing the language under consideration, could not have meant that they had no leader or minister, seeing that he already regarded him as, in a certain sense, well understood at that time, the monitor of the people. When therefore he here uses the remarkable word monitore, and qualifies it by adding de pectore, he must evi- dently refer to something else. The former word, as it occurs in ancient Latin authors, is chiefly employed to mean a prompter ; by the latter, it is well known, they described the heart or soul. What then more natural than that this father, writing in Latin, should mean, by the expressions quoted, that prayers in his time were the free outpouring of the desires of the heart, and consequently that there was no monitor required to prompt, in any way, him by whom they were offered up ? — That this was his meaning I am strongly induced to be- lieve from certain corroborating circumstances. Attend, I beseech you, to the altitude which these early Christians are represented as adopt- ing. "They looked up to heaven." Now, how could they manage to do this and have their eyes at the same time intently fixed on their prayer-books:' "They spread abroad their hands. " But in doing this, must they not have been in danger of letting their prayer- books (if they had any,) fall to the ground:' The very gestures which these ancient be- lie\ ers used are incompatible with your theory. But there is another circumstance which seems fo my mind conclusive. The object of Ter- tullian, it is granted, is to convince the pagans that the Christians were not inimical i" the existing government. He endeavours to do this by showing them that in their Christian assemblies constant intercession was made for * Taylor's Apol. for Lit Load. 1071. p. 21, Sect. SB. I am wiw aware that the bishop elsewhere suggests the very groundless hypothesis thai the prayers of which Tertullian speaks were private prayers \ hoi what you are specially called to note is lost he interpreted sine nit. ire, fcc, to mean " u^u ni, alio thctatu "—not dic- tated, orendited, or prepared tor then. — See Apol. for Lit. p. 1.5, sect. 68, 222 FORMS OF PRAYER.— BASIL. SOCRATES. AMBROSE. all who were in authority. Now, how, let us ask, does he prove this ? Why, by referring to the Bible. By quoting to them various passages from the New Testament, in which Christians are enjoined to pray for kings and rulers. This you will find him doing re- peatedly, in the chapter following that from which the passage I am now commenting on is taken. But had there been any liturgies then in the church, would he have done this ? Suppose that you were now required to estab- lish the religious loyalty of the Church of Eng- land — how would you act ? You surely would not quote texts from the Bible commanding that prayers should be made in behalf of kings. No, you would turn at once to your church's formularies. You would quote largely from the prayer-book. You would confound the ob- jector by adducing many familiar passages from thence, in which fervent intercessions are put up in behalf of the higher powers. And can you imagine that Tertullian would not have acted in a manner precisely similar? Would such a " professor of the art of per- suasion " as he was, overlook so obvious and so easy a mode of vindicating the Christians from the aspersions of their enemies ? Would he have quoted from the Bible when he might have at once appealed to the liturgy, and poin- ted to the very page in which their justification was recorded ? That he omitted to do so, that in the circumstances in which he was placed he made no reference to such a service book or directory, affords to my mind evidence al- most amounting to demonstration, that in his day nothing of the kind existed in the church. I may here refer to another passage from Tertullian which confirms the evidence con- tained in this one. He says, " Yet since our Lord, who foresaw men's necessities, after he had delivered the rule of prayer, said particu- larly, ' ask and ye shall receive,' and there are several things which need to be asked according to every one's circumstances, the rightful and ordinary prayer (the Lord's prayer,) being first used as a foundation, we may lawfully add other desires and build other petitions upon it." * This is no dubious testimony. In the time of this ancient father, it expressly teaches us, there were no precoinposed changeless forms. In addition to the Lord's prayer, which was usually offered, they might lawfully add other desires and put up other petitions, "ac- cording to every one's circumstances." The next authority whom I shall quote is Basil. That he was tied to no form of words is manifest from the following account he gives of his own practice. " When I was lately praying with the people," says he, " and con- cluded with the doxology two several ways, sometimes to God the Father with his Son and with the Holy Ghost— sometimes to God the Father through his Son by the Holy Ghost; some that were present reproved me, saying, I used not only strange but inconsistent expres- sions.'^ It thus appears that the officiating * De Orat. chap. ix. + De Sp. S. c i. in fin. minister felt himself at liberty to vary the dox- ology, and yet if any part of the public pray- ers had been then precomposed, we might surely expect it would have been this. Similar instances of the freedom thus claimed and ex- ercised may be seen in Theodoret * and Phi- lostorgius.f Let me insert here the following testimony from Socrates, the ancient ecclesiastical his- torian. He says that " in all places, and amongst all sects, scarce two churches are to be found exactly agreeing about their prayers." \ Does this language countenance the idea that there was but one service-book at that time in the church by the use of which an unbroken uniformity was maintained? Allow me to call your attention now to the testimony of Ambrose. The following declar- ation which he makes shows, that in public prayer, he did not feel himself to be at all bound clown to a form of words. He is refer- ring to a circumstance that occurred whilst he was administering the Lord's supper. "While," says he, " I was offering, I understood Castulus, whom the Arians called a presbyter, was seized by the people I began to weep most bitterly, and, in the very oblation, to be- seech God that he would help, and that this man's blood might not be shed in the church's cause." § This passage furnishes the most de- cisive proof that in the time of Ambrose the devotions of the church were not cramped and limited by forms. Offered up in extemporan- eouslanguage, they were susceptible of a ready adaptation to the emergencies that were con- tinually arising. Episcopalian controversial- ists have felt -themselves sadly puzzled to get rid of this obstinate testimony. They insinuate that Ambrose may be here speaking only of private prayer. This interpretation, every one sees at a glance, is wholly inadmissible. He speaks of his being engaged at the time the occurrence took place in the very oblation, (in ipsa oblatione.) This must have been in the church. It follows therefore, that in his day, ministers were at liberty to vary prayer as the Spirit led them, or as circumstances might re- quire. I now bring forward Augustine. It is rather hard, sir, I confess, to make your own witnesses thus turn round and bear testimony against you, but there is no help for it ; they are honest men and will tell the truth. Hear then what Au- gustine deposes. Enforcing in one place the necessity of the people being taught to exercise humility and forbearance in estimating the gifts of ministers, he says, " make them understand that not the voice but the affections of the soul reach God's ear, for then they will not laugh if they observe any of the bishops and ministers of the church are guilty of barbarisms or sole- cisms in their praying to God; or don't under- stand but blunder in the words they pro- nounce. " || Can you fail to perceive how * H. C. lib. ii. c. 24. + Lib. iii. c. 13. t Soc. Hist. 1. v. cap. 22. Lon. 1709. i Epist. 3;) ad Marcellinam. II De Catech. Rudib. cap. ix. torn. iv. AUGUSTINE. EPIPHANIUS. 223 strongly this passage militates against your theory? The bishops ami ministers of the rally church, it appears, were liable to fall into barbarisms and solecisms in public prayer. Hut surely this would not have been possible if they had bad their books before them. You will admit, I am sure, that the man who could commit mistakes when he had his eye on the page and his finger at the sentence, must have bad a most inveterate propensity to blunder- ing. It seems, therefore, to be an unavoidable inference that these primitive ministers prayed without forms at all, or, at all events, with forms of tbeir own composure; there could not have been, consequently, at that time in the church, a public authorised service-book, the petitions of which they bad innumerable limes conned over, and with the phraseology of which the\ were perfectly familiar. I have uow to solicit your attention to an- other statement of Augustine. Speaking of those who minister in public, he says, " that tbe prayers used by many of them were daily mended when repeated to the more learned. " And he adds — " that many of them did through ignorance use prayers composed by heretics in their public ministrations."* In this age of the church we might have expected to find something like a fixed liturgy. The worship of God had uow become greatly corrupted, and many of the clergy -were sunk in sloth and ignorance. Some such expedient, therefore, as forms of prayer, seemed now to be required to aid the unskilfulness of some, and prevent the errors of others from being extended and perpetuated. As yet, however, even at this period, a liturgy like yours was a thing unheard of in the church. There is abundant evidence of this in the passage we have here quoted. From it we learn the following facts: first, that the weakest and most ignorant ministers, in- Btead of having any public service-book outof which they might read for the edification of the people, were in the habit of using prayers of their own. These they either prepared as well as they could themselves, or borrowed even from heretics. And we are told that they gene- rally first brought them to the more learned and prudent of their brethren in order that they might mend them. Now this proves that even the unlearned and unsound in the ministry were accustomed to use prayers of their own, and consequently, that there could then have been no precomposed forms enjoined on the church. But, secondly, wc learn from this passage, that these prayers of which Augustine speaks were used mainly at the administration of baptism. Now, if such liberty were assigned them here, if even in the celebration of this ordinance thej were tied to no fixed forms, much less eanit be supposed that in the various other parts of public worship they would be subject to their imposition. Lad once more it. follows, that if ministers scandalously ignor- ant, in a Bervice so solemn as baptism, were not compelled to adhere to any publicly ar- ranged and settled order of petitions, then it canuot for a moment be imagined that the wise * Aug.de Bapt.contr. Oonat. lib. vi. cap. 2.J. and learned and pious among the clergy were prevented from addressing God in their own words, but were bound to adhere undeviatingly to those which had been already prepared and prescribed. On the whole, this passage de- monstrates that, at the time Augustine penned it, there could have been no liturgy in the church.* And now, sir, I trust I have in some degree removed the dissatisfaction you felt at the pau- city of my former references to antiquity. I have now furnished you with a mass of proof, which, I think, you will not readily invalidate, that the assertion I made in my discourse, however marvellous, is yet true, " that the tes- timony of Christian antiquity is in favour of the manner of prayer which presbyterians adopt and against the use of liturgies." But you may here say to me, how then do you account for the origin of these liturgies ? To this, I must say, I am unable to give any very distinct or decisive answer. The " rise and progress " of such an innovation, like that of many other changes from the primitive or- der, is very obscure. " Of this we may be sure," says a pious living writeiyf- " that forms of prayer were not imposed in public worship until fleshly wisdom came to have rule in ec- clesiastical affairs, nor until the church had, to a lamentable degree, lost ' the spirit of grace and supplications,' and her ministers ceased to be able or willing to pray extempore." Let me quote for you, on this point, the opinions of two learned men. The first is that of Dr. John Owen. He says, " it is certain that if not the first invention, yet the first public recom- mendation and prescription of devised forms of prayer into the practice of the churches, were designed to prevent the insinuation of false opinions and corrupt modes of worship into the public administrations." He goes on to show, however, that what was designed as good policy was bad in its results, for that an engine was thus provided which, in the hands of the Man of Sin, furnished tempting facili- ties for establishing and perpetuating the gros- sest abominations in the temple of God. The other authority to which I refer is Bingham ! Yes, sir, to this " learned ornament " of your church I again appeal. I gi\o you his words this time, as you insist upon it, " with syllabic accuracy," though I maintain that I gave you the sulistanti.il meaning id' them before, and if they do not establish my position, and demo- * It may be proper to add here, as tending to confirm tlic evidence adduced in the text, the following testi- mony (rum Bplphanim: — Writing to the Bishop of Je- rusalem, lie makes use of the following expressions, which show clearly that, in his day, ministers were not fettered by forms, hut m ■_■ In vary their public prayers as they Ihooght proper. Having stated that he is not in the habit of praying openly for his friend./.;/ name, in tin- hearing OI the people, lest he should be thought lightly to esteem him, (a circumstance that he would not sunly have required to mention had there been a li- turgy) be goes on to say—" But when we are toward the i ml of our prayer, according to tin* manner used in the sacrament, wc say thus for all and for Ihre,— keep him that preaches the truth. Or, it may be thus,— do thou, Lord, assist ami keep him that he may preach the truth ; according tu if happen* bett to fall m, and agree with the order of our discourse." — Inter Oper. Hieron. + Urwick. 224 FORMS OF PRAYER.— ADMISSIONS OF BINGHAM, BURNET, and KING. lish yours, I am willing to give up the contro- versy. What is his language : " Though there was but one form of worship throughout the whole church as to what concerned the sub- stance of Christian worship, yet every bishop was at liberty to form his own liturgy, in what method and words he thought proper." Mark this. What, let me ask you, is your liturgy ? A collection of forms of prayer imposed on the whole church, and from the ipsissima verba of which no bishop, no minister of any kind, is permitted to make the slightest deviation. But in the primitive church Bingham says, " every bishop might form his own liturgy in what method and words he chose." There could then, in Bingham's view, have been no pre- composed general formula of devotion at that time existing, or none would have dared to tamper with it or change it. Why, sir, the accurately transcribed words of this author * confirm the statements I have made, and es- tablish the very point for which I am contend- ing. And had I space to quote farther from him, I might show that, with all his anxiety to discover liturgies in the early church, he furnishes no evidence of the existence of any thing but precomposed hymns. So far from establishing your theory, we find that he is constrained to acknowledge the following im- portant facts ; that the form which one minister might employ was binding on no other, that not even were the forms of a parent congrega- tion transferred to a second that might have branched off from it, and finally, that when the persecutors in the primitive ages sought after copies of the Scriptures, and all other things connected with the worship of the Christians, no mention occurs of then- even in a single in- * This testimony of Bingham is abundantly confirmed by the following candid admissions o( bishop Burnet and lord chancellor King, which ought to be sufficient, one would think, to put to silence the noisy tribe ot half-learned churchmen of the present day, who talk so glibly and confidently about liturgies in the primitive church. Speaking of the fourth council of Carthage, held A.D. 398, the bishop says, " Now there being no ge- neral liturgies nor ordinals then in the world, hut every country or perhaps every diocese having their own forms, it was never defined in what form of words this prayer and benediction should be used, but was left indifferent, so the substance of the blessing were preserved. — Bi- shop Burnet on Ordination, p. 25. Lord Chancellor King, after quoting from Cyprian to show that it was the priest solely that pronounced the public prayers without the voices of the people, adds, " and indeed it was impossible for the people to respond since they had no fixed form of prayer except the Loid's prayer, which (Lord's prayer) they frequently though not always repeated ; and then as to their oilier prayers, every bishop or minister of a parish was ieft to his own liberty and ability therein. " Referring to prayers, ad. ditional to the Lord's prayer, introduced in their congre- gational worship, he says, " These other prayers, which made up a great part of Divine service, were not stinted and imposed forms, but the words and expressions of them were left to the prudence, choice, and judgment of every particular bishop or minister. I do not here say that a bishop or minister used no arbitrary form of prayer, all that 1 say is, that none were imposed. The words or expressions of them were not prescribed, but every one that officiated, delivered himself in such terms as best pleased him, and varied his petitions according to the present ciicnmstances and emergencies; or, if it be more intelligible, that the primitive Christiatis hud no stinted liturgies or imposed forms of prayer. " See his " Account of the Worship of the Primitive Church. » stance happening on a prayer book. And this is the man whom you regard as a champion of liturgies ! You hear him telling you that the primitive bishop might use any words in prayer he chose, while you know that a mo- dern minister of your church, whether bishop, rector, or curate, dare use no words in addres- sing his Maker except those that have been composed for him, and printed for him, and published for him, in the prayer-book ! I give you joy of your advocate. Before I proceed to the next subject, your misrepresentation of the views of the Refor- mers, let me notice here a quibble which you have a second time introduced, to try and di- vert attention from the real question. You ask me, on what principle do I condemn forms of prayer in the church, while I allow forms of psalmody in the meeting-house ? You say, " these nice distinctions are incomprehensible to me." It may be so, sir,— hut it does not therefore follow that they are incomprehensi- ble to all. On the contrary, I think that there are few persons, of ordinary intelligence, who cannot easily discover the wide difference be- tween them. Will you reflect, if you please, that the psalms were dictated by the Spirit of God ? Is this the case with your liturgy ? Are its prayers given by inspiration? Will you reflect, again, that the psalms were ex- pressly designed by God to be sung, and were sung, in time past, in public worship ? Can you plead a similar prescription for your prayers ? Is there any instance on record of their being used by the inspired servants of God, or can any divine command be referred to enjoining their adoption upon us? You will not, I presume, say so. Must you not see, then, that we are perfectly consistent while we use the psalms and yet reject the prayer-book? You say that psalms themselves are prayers. True. When a congregation are singing, they may be said in a certain sense to be praying, but not, be it observed, in the sense in which the icord is understood in this controversy. I am arguing against forms of prayer, against the religious practice which that phrase is usually employed to describe ; and you pre- tend to regard as identical with this forms of singing, though you know that to the use of these, presbyterians have never urged an ob- jection. This, sir, is a pitiful device. But it is easily seen through. You say, — "A congregation can allow them- selves to agree upon a set psalm-book;" and seeing that this is the case, you marvel that they cannot bring themselves to adopt your prayer-book. Did it not strike you, when you used this phrase — " a congregation can allow themselves to agree," that it is singularly inap- plicable to the use of your liturgy ? What liberty of agreeing about it have any of your congregations? None whatever. It is ty- ranically enforced on them by " their bishops and governors," or rather by the parliament of the country, and they must adopt the exact petitions it contains, whether they like them or not. This, you will see, is another material OPINIONS OF THE REFORMERS— WICKLIFFE. CALVIN. 225 point in which the prayer-book differs from the psalms. It is not only a human composure, but it is so bound down upon conscience, that none may vary one iota from the method it prescribes ; whereas the psalms appointed by God may be used in such order and method as may be deemed most called for by circum- stances, and most edifying to the church. I trust that you will now never again say, that you cannot see the distinction between a psalm- book and a prayer-book. I shall now advert to the view you have given of the opinions of the Reformers respecting forms of prayer. You will earnestly desire to make it appear that they were favourable to their adoption. Unhappily for you, the testi- mony of history is here entirely against you. You are probably ignorant of the fact, that Wickliffe, " the morning star of the Reforma- tion," has left on record his unqualified con- demnation of liturgies. He was a witness for the truth, whose profound learning and un- feigned piety were, in his own day, and have ever since been universally acknowledged. He says — "To restrict men to certain prescribed forms of prayer is contrary to the liberty granted them by God."* " It would be an advantage to the church to be restored to her ancient li- berty, and that the prayers for canonical hours were laid aside." -f- Nor was he singular in this opinion. His enlightened views on this and kindred subjects were taken up and propagated in that early age by many other devoted servants of the Redeemer. Foxe, in his ' Martyrology,' gives the names of many of these, who flourished in the fourteenth century — among others, of the illustrious John Huss and Jerom3 of Prague, and says, at the close of the calologue which he furnishes of them, that " their number is almost infinite." It is a singular but well-known fact, that the uni- versity of Oxford of that day took occasion to bear the highest public testimony to Wickliffe's character, expressing, by letters-testimonial, the deepest respect for his " peerless *' learn- ing, and representing his " doctrines and his labours as tending to the praise of God and the profit of the church." We fear, that any man holding his views at present, condemning liturgies, representing " human ceremonies as superstitious and sinful," and asserting, that "in Paul's time two orders of clergymen were sufficient for the church," and that " pride in- vented other degrees," would have his merit but very slenderly appreciated amid the "learn- ed retreats " of the Oxford university. You would fain, however, if possible, have Calvin on your side. I denied that this reformer, any more than those who preceded him, ever really approved of forms of prayer. I admit- ted, indeed, that he advised the Protector of England to retain the use of them at a time when the Reformation had, as it were, but dawned, and when, amid general ignorance and corruption, both clergy and people seemed to stand in need of the aid which they would afford. That he recommended them, however, • Wald. in Full. + Fasc. p. 269. only as a temporary expedient, I showed, from certain corroborating circumstances, to be not only probable, but hardly admitting of a dojubt. One of these is contained in the very passage you quote from him recommending forms of prayer. Why does he recommend them ? He says, " to provide for the ignorance and unskil- fulness of some," and to " counteract the levity of others." That is, he thought them advis- able at that time, when ignorant and corrupt ministers abounded in the church. But it is implied in this, that when such an era had pas- sed away, it would be proper that forms of prayer should pass away with it. Another corroborating circumstance is, that in the con- text that follows the passage in his letter to the Protector, advising forms, he uses this lan- guage — " But it does not follow from thence," (namely, from what he has stated respecting the expediency of these helps,) " that through means of that order of polity in the church, the native vigour of the gospel should languish." And then he exhorts them, in order that this may not be the case, " by all means to seek out fit and able preachers." (This context, by the way, I perceive, after all my admoni- tions, you have still, with a most inveterate passion for garbling, in part suppressed.) It tends, in my opinion, to show that though Cal- vin advised forms at a certain time, and to serve certain temporary ends, he did not in the ab- stract approve of them. Another circumstance which confirms this view is, that when writing to John Knox soon after this, on this very sub- ject, he has these remarkable expressions: — " But now for some men to strive as touching the forme of prayer, and to suffer that to be an impediment that ye cannot there joyne into one body of the church, it is too much out of season." Again he says — " In the English liturgy I see that there were many tolerable fooleries." And again, "It was lawful to be- gin of such rudiments or absedaries, but so that it behoved the learned and godly ministers of Christ to enterprise farther, and so set forth some thing more filed from rust and purer." * These are remarkable expressions. Such was the effect which this letter had, when read to the people, that it greatly moderated the views of those who had been most anxious for a fix- ed liturgy. Accordingly, the one which Knox, acting on Calvin's advice, proceeded after- wards to draw up, was quite different from the English; for though it contained some short forma of prayer, no minister wot bound to ad- here to thcm.f All this abundantly proves, 1667 Calvini F.pist. p. 28 Oper. torn. ix. Amst. anno + " There was this Important difference," says M'Crie, " between the two) in the English the minuter is restricted tn tin- repetition oj the vera wordi of the prayer*— in the Scottish, (flrsl used by the English burch at Geneva, and called the Book "t Common Ordei), he is left id lihrriy I; run/ from them, and sub- stitute prayer* of hisimn in their room." — A single quo- tation from it proves this. Thus, at the end ol the oc counts/ the puhlic service nl the Sabbath, this intima- tion is •unjoined: "It shall not be necessaiie for the minister daylie to repeat all these things before men- tioned, but beginning with some manner of confession, 2 D 226 FORMS OF PRAYER.— OBJECTIONS TO FREE PRAYER what I before asserted, that Calvin never ap- proved of fixed liturgies. You mention, however, some additional cir- cumstances respecting the Reformer's prac- tice, which you seem to think are opposed to this conclusion. For instauce, that he some- times precomposed the prayer which he used in the pulpit. Why, sir, many a presbyterian minister does the same. But it does not fol- low, therefore, that he approves of a liturgy, or would submit to allow any body of men to oblige him to use the petitions which they had prepared, and those only, in his addresses to a throne of grace. Another instance you give is, that a liturgy of his composition was used in the Church of Geneva. Do you mean to insinuate, that this and the other foreign litur- gies, the Belgic, the French, and the German, were precisely of the same character as yours ? — that they were imposed on these churches, and that from the expressions contained in them, ministers were not allowed to depart? You know that this was not the case. You know that many of them were directories rather than liturgies, such as the Liturgia Tigurina, published by Lavater. Why, then, do you re- fer to these liturgies of the continental chur- ches, when you must be aware that they form no precedents for yours ; and when you. must be conscious, moreover, that from them you can never obtain the slightest evidence that Calvin approved of this manner of worshipping God? This is the position you wish to estab- lish; and yet, in the very page in which you refer to the above-mentioned liturgies, as if they proved it, you actually state, that Calvin " preferred free prayers in Geneva"! Why, sir, what contradictions are here ! In what mazes of inconsistency have you got yourself entangled, by your anxiety to retain Calvin as a witness in your favour ! But why need I dwell longer on this point ? I call upon the reader to observe, that you have yourself form- ally given it up. Here is your retractation, ten dered evidently with much reluctance : " / shall not say that Calvin s preferences ivere to- wards forms of prayer." That is all I ask. You add, however—" Nor did I ever say it"! Ah ! do you not recollect in ' Sermons on the Church'? — but I will not insist — you must naturally feel sore on this subject; and let me dismiss it, therefore, once for all, by express- ing my hope, that whether you said this before or not, you will take especial care never to say it ayain. On the whole, " I believe I may now con- clude," to adopt your own style of speaking, that I have completely set aside every argu- ment which you have thus far advanced in sup- port of forms of prayer. I have shown that these were not imposed on the ancient Jews; on the contrary that in the great majority of instances their prayers were in the strictest to proceed to the sermon, wh'ch ended, he either useth tni- praver for ail estates, hetore meuuoueri, or elsr prayetil as the S/jint ej Gnilxha.ll move ktatuai.L, train inn the same ace riling to ihe time and matter which he hath iutit-ated aW — Knox's Liturgy, p. 86. lit) Edin. Hil I. Dunlop's Confessions, 4 J J— too. sense free. I have shown that there is not the slightest credible evidence that there was any prescribed liturgy in the time of Christ, and that even if there had been, it would not affect the present question. I have evinced, by a reference to the highest authorities, that the. Lord's prayer was intended to be used chiefly as a pattern. I ha\e shown that the apostles, both in their teaching and practice, disclaimed forms, and sanctioned unrestricted supplication. I have proved, by numerous and undeniable testimonies from the fathers, that Christian an- tiquity is in this matter found coinciding with apostolic example. And finally, I have made it abundantly evident that the voice of the Re- formers is uplifted against your system, and in favour of ours ; that though such men as Cal- vin may have tolerated forms for a time, they never approved of them ; that, in the words of the concession which you have been compel- led to make, " their preferences were not to- wards them," but on the contrary, as your ad- mission implies, towards the manner of prayer which we now employ. Thus have I been en- abled to dislodge you from every position which you have successively taken up. Thus have I established, on a foundation which I challenge you to undermine, i he principle which I desire to maintain, that the dictates of the word of God, and the practice of the early church, are in favour of that mode of worship which presbyterians adopt, and against the use of liturgies. I shall now take up and examine the. force of those objections which you have urged against the practice of free prayer. Your Jirst is, that it is defective in " calmness and simplicity." You speak of it as sometimes " dishonouring prayer by bursts of excitement, strains of de- clamation, and impetuous expressions." I do not believe, sir, and I think few will be dispo- sed to believe, that this is a just representation of the manner in which public prayer is offer- ed up in presbyterian churches. I am not aware that it is at all characterised by that im- passioned and headlong enthusiasm with which your '• excited fancy " has here invested it. There may be, and perhaps are, assemblies of professing Christians to whose services your language will apply ; but it is, I assure you, a most inaccurate delineation of ours. You speak not of wishing " to move with the impe- tuosity of the hurricane." I profess to you, that I know of no form of service to which this epithet will apply except to the chanting or re- citing of certain parts of your own, when the multitudinous voices of the people are heard commingling in Babel-like confusion with the accents of the minister, the responses of the clerk, and the pealing tones of the organ. Those who have marked the extraordinary ef- fect produced by this combination of sounds will readily conjecture from whence you have borrowed your idea of a " hurricane " in public worship. Our devotions, however, I assure you, are by no means of this tempestuous character. They may not, possibly, be so " majestic," but they are at all events as calm and sober as your own. EXAMINED. DEFECTS OF THE ENGLISH LITURGY. 227 But your object ion against free prayer, which I am now considering, seems to be urged mainly on the ground that it is liable to be clothed la unsuitable and unedifving language. You contrast it in this respect with the liturgy. " Its language," you tell us, ''appositely ex- presses your wants, pictures your very desires, frames your emotions, in terms more eloquent," &c. Again, " I am at no man's mercy when I go to church. " " I know that I can kneel down, and that from the moment the exhor- tation is delivered till the grace is pronounced, I shall hear nothing to offend, or ruffle, or dis- tress me. " Again, " my minister may read badly, but he can say nothing from which I can dissent, nor could he say what he does say better. " In all this, it is easy to see, you ob- ject to extemporary addresses, because minis- ters in offering them up fall into obscurity of sentiment and inaccuracies of expression. I answer, in the first place, that this is not gene- rally speaking the case, nor have you any right to assume that it is the case. It is the province of the church to see that none be in- vested with the ministerial office save those who are endowed with suitable gifts, and who are capable of edifying the people by their praying, as well as by their preaching. Your objection proceeds on the assumption that the church neglects her duty, and appoints in- competent individuals to feed the llock. Again, you leave wholly out of view in this argument the promised aid of the Spirit of God. I shall have occasion to advert to this more fully afterwards. It is not true, sir, as you insinuate, that they who worship in pres- byterian churches are " at the mercy of man." They are in the hands of a merciful God, who who has himself appointed the ministry of the word, who has set apart a particular indivi- dual to exercise it, and who has promised to bo witli him in the powerof his Spirit to " enrich him by Jesus Christ in all utterance and in all knowledge." They who remeinberthese things, who have scriptural apprehensions of the ordi- nance of the ministry, and who believe the promises of a faithful God, will feel that they are never at man's mere;/ when they join in prayer in the sanctuary, and will only be as- tonished that any Christian clergyman could allow himself to give utterance to such lan- guage. Farther, were those who are accustomed to pray extempore even more liable than experi- rnr ■ shows they are, to address God in a " hesitating " manner and with inaccuracies of expression, we have no reason to conclude that these, when the hearts of the w#rshipper-. an' sincerely lifted up, are either offensive to God or distressing to the people. With regard to the latter point — the effect produced on the people — it is remarkable that presbyterians (the persons chiefly aggrieved,) have never made a complaint on the sul jeei. The lamen- tations respecting it have always proceeded from episcopalians. And witli regard to the former consideration, the supposed offensivc- ness to God of occasional defects of manner or expression, hear how good Bishop Hall could speak. Referring to what he calls, " stops or solecisms" in the expressions of public prayer, he says, " let them be broken off with sobs and sighs and incongruities of our delivery, our good God is no otherwise af- fected to this imperfect elocution, than an in- dulgent parent is to the clipped and broken language of his dear child, which is more de- lightful to him than any other's smooth oratory. This is not to be opposed in another, by any vain that hath /blind the true operations of this grace in himself. "* But here, wc may ask, is the English li- turgy entirely free from all just censure and objection on this score to which you have re- ferred? You believe that its phraseology is perfect. You expressly affirm that the minis- ter who reads over your prayer3 " could not say what he does say better. " I am afraid you will get tew to agree with you in this. While I cheerfully admit that many of them arc excellent, and some of them beautiful, yet, taken as a whole, I am persuaded that the an- nals of extempore supplication have never presented any thing equal to them for uncouth phraseology, inelegant composition, obscure sentiment, and unmeaning connexion. It would require a great deal too much of my space fully to illustrate this assertion by examples, but a diligent examination of the prayer-book will enable any one to test its correctness. Let me, however, transcribe here a few phrases in proof of what I have said. For instance, the Eng- lish liturgy prays, (and as you quote the pas- sage yourself you probably consider it a beauty rather than a blemish,) that " God would pre- vent us in all our doings with his most gracious favour, ani further us with his continual help." Again, the people are taught to entreat God that " by his holy inspiration they may think those things that be good," — that "those things which they ask faithfully they may obtain, " — that they " may think and do such things as be rightful," and, once more, that "by the wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by St. Luke all the diseases of their souls may be healed, " &c. Again, they are required to say that God, " for the more confirmation of the faith, did suffer his holy apostle Tho- mas to be doubtful in his Son's resurrec- tion, " in another place, to pray that " they may have the fruition of hit glorious Ghdht ad," and again, " that he would daily increase in them the spirit of ghostly strength." Besides these, we meet with such phrases in the liturgy as the following: — " Great marvels," "health- ful Spirit of grace," that "God's mercy may lighten upon us," that "the course of this world may be peaceably ordered by his i/ocrr- naiiee," that men u may be fu Ijilltd with his grace and heavenly Leoediction," that "our sinful bodies may be m ale clean by Christ's body, " f and that "infants may enjoy the * Controversy with the Smect>mn;ian Divines. f It mil/lit be inquiied in what respect the extraor- dinary petition above quoted is illustrated by the equally extraordinary rubric in ihe communion service, — I hat "if any ot ihe consecrated bread and wine remain, it shall not be carried out of the church, hut the piiest and 228 FORMS OF PRAYER.— OBJECTIONS TO FREE PRAYER everlasting benediction of his heavenly washing.' Once more, Christ is called " God's honourable Son, " and we are said " in the poiver of the di- vine Majesty to worship the unity. " Such, sir, are some specimens of prayer-book phrase ology. I submit them to your dispassionate consideration. You have railed at our manner of worship as liable to the introduction of " ex- pressions which dishonour prayer. " What say you to these — the introduction of which is not merely possible, but certain, regular, and invariable ? Are they not barbarous ? Could not the minister, in reading them over, " say what he does say better ? " Is not their fre- quent repetition calculated to " distress " any man who has a proper regard for the English language ? Let me mention, now, an instance or two of unmeaning connexion. The liturgy prays — " Give peace, in our time, O Lord, because there is none other that fight eth for us but only thee, O God. " Again, " O God,, .who art the au- thor of all godliness, be ready, we beseech thee, to hear the devout prayers of thy church," &c. And, once more, " Almighty and everlasting God, who alone workest great marvels, send down upon our bishops and curates the health- ful Spirit of thy grace. " In these petitions the language, generally speaking, is plain enough. Is the connexion equally so ? With regard to the last one, for instance, might it not be interpreted, by a rigid commentator, to mean that, in the judgment of the church, the bestowal of grace on bishops and curates is a peculiar marvel, a special demonstration of Omnipotence ? It is worthy of note, that this prayer has been wisely altered in the Ameri- can liturgy. Instead of " who alone workest great marvels," it has this suitable scriptural preamble, " from whom cometh down every good and every perfect gift." — I may here take occa- sion to observe^ that not only is there much ob- scurity of sentiment and connexion in several of the prayers of the liturgy, but that, in my opinion, the extreme brevity of most of them forms one of the gravest objections that has ever been urged to their use. Many of them consist only of a single petition with a verbose introduction and conclusion. They are ended almost as soon as they are begun. This must greatly detract from the dignity of worship, and prove a serious interruption to the current of devotional feeling. It is not altogether with- out justice, that one of the old puritan writers speaks of many of the forms of the English liturgy as resembling " wishes " rather than prayers. * such of the communicants as he may call junto him, shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink the same.'' * The following language is used by the pious Rich- ard Baxter, in reference to this subject :— " The shred- ding the common prayer into such abundance of smat parcels, seemeth to me very inconvenient. It seemeth too light and ludicrous to toss sentences so formally be- tween the priest and the clerk, and to make such a mul- titude of prayers, consisting of but a sentence, or of two at most. And it seemeth to be tautologie and vain re- petition to repeat over the same word so ott; and a tak- ing of God's name in vain, or too unreverently to begin with his titles and attributes, and end with his name You object to our manner of prayer, how- ever, not only because it is liable to be "dis- honoured by impetuous expressions," but also because there occur in it " railing accusations, and intercessions in the form of indictments which vex and disturb the hearts of the devo- tional." You say that in it, "outrages on re- ligion are possible." In proof of this, you quote a certain petition which you say was offered up by one of the chaplains of Oliver Cromwell ! Really, sir, you must have been hard pressed to make out a case of profanity against presbyterian worship, when you were obliged to go back to the time of the common- wealth in order to procure a single illustration of it ! I do not, by any means, doubt but that in free prayer a " railing accusation," or pos- sibly even a profane expression, may some- times be used. I can only say, that I have never heard such in presbyterian churches. Nor can they be otherwise than of extremely rare occurrence, for the minister who would be known to employ them repeatedly, would be speedily made amenable to our discipline. But let me remind you that I can point to several prayers of your liturgy, used not merely occasionally, but constantly, not in one parti- cular church, but throughout all your churches, which embody not only positive error, but also, I am sorry to be obliged to add, downright blasphemy. In the liturgy is this prayer — " From fornication and all other deadly sin, good Lord deliver us " ? Here there is direct countenance given to the popish unscriptural distinction between mortal and venial sin. * In another part of your Service-book, the peo- ple are taught to entreat God for those things which"for their unworthiness they dare not ask." Things which we dare not ask are, of course, things unlawful, prohibited. Is it right then in the church to pray habitually for things which God has not promised, and which she knows per- fectly she can never hope to receive ? f To take again, and the merits or sake of Christ, and this at al- most every sentence; as if we had done with him, and were taking our leave, and had forgot somewhat that called us to begin again: and thus we begin and end, and begin and end again, it may be twenty times toge- ther."— Five Disput. of Ch.Gov. and Worship, p 421, Ann. 1659. * In the Conference appointed by king Charles II, the presbyterian ministers intieated, among other things, that this piece of Popery might be expunged from the prayer-book. In this request they were joined by such Churchmen as Ussher, Williams, I'rideaux, &c. The Episcopal Commissioners, however, would not hear of it.— See Nichol's pref. to his Com. on Book of Common Prayer. + Let me, while on this point, call your attention to the collect which your church has appointed for Mi- chaelmas day. The portion of Scripture to be read on that day she terms an einatte, though it is in reality no such ihing, but a prophecy from the Apocalypse, ot the war in heaven between Michael and his angels, and the Dragon and his ancels. That by Michael is here meant the Lord Jesus Christ, is manifested from the luih verse, and has been long admitted by the best commen- tators on Scripture. But your church deliberately mis- interprets the language ol the Holy Ghost in this pas. sage, and teaches her people to regard Christ as a cre- ated angel, by putting into their mouth the following prayer : >' O. everlasting God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of anye s and men in a wonder- ful order; mercifully g i ant that as thy holy anyels al- ways do thee service in heaven, so by tby appointment . --i EXAMINED. ERRORS OF THE LITURGY. 229 but one additional instance — what gross heresy does your church teach, in the prayers which she puts tip before and after every baptism. Before baptism she intreats that the " infant may receive remissiomof his sins by spiritual regeneration ;" thus presenting an erroneous view of the cause of pardon, which all sound theology has ever ascribed, not to the sancti- fying work of the Spirit, but to the atoning blood of the Saviour. And after baptism your church instructs the priest to say, " We give thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant by thy Holy Spirit;" assuming in this as in- fallibly true, what Scripture and fact alike concur in contradicting, that regenerating grace is the inseparable concomitant of bap- tism. So much for the error — and now as to the blasphemy — what think you of the prayers appointed for the fast of king Charles the mar- tyr ? What think you of wresting from their true meaning, expressions which the Holy Ghost has used in reference to our blessed Lord, and applying them to an earthly prince, infamous for his selfishness and duplicity ? What think you of a church of Christ, in her solemn assemblies, using such language as this, " The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of' the Lord, was taken in their pits," "in their anger they slew a man," " even the man of thy right hand, the Son of man whom thou hoist made so strong for thyself" using this awful language, I say, in reference to — whom? Je- sus of Nazareth ? No — but Charles the First of England ! What shall be said of prayers such as these ? Do they deserve eulogy ? Say rather, do they admit of palliation ? And yet, sir, these prayers to which I have been referring, some of them erroneous, some of them in the highest degree profane, are in your liturgy. And yet you say, " The minister may read over the whole service, and say nothing from which I can dissent " ! " I can listen to it from the beginning to the end, and hear nothing to offend, or ruffle, or dis- tress me "! Truly, sir, I know of few things more '' distressing," than to hear an evangel] cal minister, in the present enlightened age, making such an avowal.* they may succour ami defend us on earth," &r. It may be observed besides, that in that prayer so fn qui nil) re- pealed in the communion service Deponing, •' I herelorc wilb angels and archangels, mid with all the company of heaven," &c., the Church of England asserts her be. lief in the existence of in order of beings called a/Wi- nngels — an opinion disowned by all sound divines, and wholly unsanctioned by "God 'a word written." * I observe that the Kev. Hugh \l\\rilc, in bis ' Lec- tures on the t hurcb,' just published, by no means ac. cords With Mr. Howl In llle iiiiqualilieii eulogy which he passes on the liturgy, lie suggests, (though, ol couise," tremblingly alive to the delicacy 01 ibe g round on which he trends,") that certain suspicious passages in the prayi r-book, '• sbou'd be placed by authority be- tween brackets, and the clergy authorised to read 01 not these bracketed clauses according to their own ludg. mem." What an Ingenious plan! Yet, might it not have struck .Mr. M'Neile, Ihal the church would be lit • iiidiil'ereiit honest," In prescribing a service-book for her clergy and people, of the orthodoxy ot which she would be at Ihe same tune openly acknowledging her- self to be doubtful? Willi what consistency or laith- fuln.ss could she " hold forth " such a testimony before Your second objection to our mode of pray- ing is, that it is not comprehensive enough. " When the matter of prayer is left to a minis- ter's own judgment or self-possession" — (the promised aid of the Spirit is here again wholly excluded,) — " it is highly probable," you tell us, '' that much will be left unsaid that should havo been said." On the contrary, your prayers, you inform us, are " wonderful speci- mens of catholicity and speciality." " In them nothing is passed over." This is doubtless high praise. But there seems to me to be no good reason why it should he claimed or given. It does not appear to me to be a matter of great importance, that public prayer should comprehend and specify every conceivable to- pic of supplication. A father is not displeased with] and does not deny the requests of, his child, because every time he comes into his presence he does not ask him for every thing of which he stands in need. And will God withhold needful blessings from his dear child- ren, because on those occasions in which they draw near to him in public prayer, they often omit tointreatof him many things which he may be ready to grant, and they require to receive ? It should be remembered, however, that this objection, when directed against presbyterian worship, is totally unfounded. There are al- most invariably some petitions used by our ministers in public devotion which are perfect in comprehensiveness — which literally leave nothing unsought for that is proper to desire. Such, for example, as this: " O Lord, what we fail in asking, fail not thou in bestowing." Here we have condensed into a single sentence the world ? Still, there is a good deal of discretion shown, by this distinguished advocate of pielacv, in the hint lhat he has thrown out; and as he is a person of some influence, it is to be hoped he will lie able lo pre- vail with the queen and council to take the matter up. Presbyterians, I should think, are quite disposed to con- cur wilb him as to the expediency of something being done. The only point on which they would be likely to differ wilb him would be probably as lo the number of Ihe brackets. It may be added here that recent events have abun- dantly shown that tlieie is a growing conviction among the clergy of ihe Church ol England of the absolute necessity of a speedy reformation of the Liturgy. The subject, it is well known, has lately occupied the at- tention of ihe legislature. A petition was, not long since, presented to the House ol Lords, sinned by tlin I/, clergymen and about the same number of lay members of the Establishment, embodying sentiments which, however judicious they may appear to us, would, no doubt, excite horror in the minds of such zealots as Mr. Boyd, This remarkable document, among other things, states — " I bat some deviations from the authorised forms snd positive obligations of our chinch have been found so advisable as to be sanctioned by mntrat practice, while the clergy are still bound fo /ro/'ess an adherence to the httit hi our I'rayer-book dim Article!." "That Athanasius' creed is not generally understood by the people, while each of the damnatory clauses in itself, is mii h as lo require an explanation inconsistent with the words, when taken in their plain sense and common lorce." " That in curious othrr parts of our prayer book, es- pecially in tin- services lor baptism, for orrfmo'ion, and for luii'ml, some Wonts and phrases ate of doubtful H$- nifleatton, and ofAei » ise liable to misconstruction," &c. " I bat some of the canons could not In- m led on, and others are confessed l> inexpedient ; while ihe clergy aie c monly understood to be »o. ud to ihr obtrrcanct of them alt."— See the " Alheiucuin " for Aug. 1810. p.(J8|. 230 FORMS OF PRAYER.— FREE PRAYER MORE COMPREHENSIVE every thing that the members of the church can be supposed to desire for themselves or others; and some such supplication, we know, the most of our ministers are in the habit of offering up in some part of the exercise of pub- lic prayer. This objection then is altogether imaginary as directed against our worship ; but I shall now show that it has a very forcible application to your own. In order to prove to you that your liturgy is not the wonderful spe- cimen of catholicity that you fondly imagine it to be, I shall mention a number of important subjects which it does not embrace — a variety of topics of devotion, for the introduction of which it makes no provision. I would ask, for example, first of all, in what place it makes confession of original sin ? This is a topic, you know, frequently introduced in the prayers of the saints recorded in Scripture. How affect- ingly did David dwell on it ! And now, evan- gelical ministers who are not tied to forms, sel- dom permit a Sabbath to pass without leading the minds of the people to an acknowledgment not merely of actual trespasses, but of original guilt and depravity. But there seems to be no confession of this nature in your public prayers. We look in vain in them for an ac • knowledgment of our fall in Adam — for a sin- gle distinct reference to that primal sin which brought " death into the world and all our wo." Is not this a serious defect? Let me specify now some topics of thanksgiving and supplica- tion. And here I may mention first, Sabbath- school instruction. In what part of the service- book are you taught to plead with God in be- half of this mighty instrumentality — beseech- ing him that he would make it effectual for the enlightenment of the millions on whom it is brought to bear, that he would bless the ef- forts of its managers and promoters, that he would endow teachers with faithfulness and zeal, and enable the children to understand and profit by their instructions ? You know, sir, that there is not a syllable on this subject from the beginning to the end of the prayer- book. I would ask you again to direct me to the page in this " wonderful" volume, in which the prayers for missionaries are contained — in which God is specially entreated on behalf of those noble-hearted men, who, taking their lives in their hand, have gone to preach the gospel under the burning suns of India ; or in which he is asked to prosper the exertions of those not less devoted servants of Christ, who are.at this moment labouring in the barren islands of our land, to spread among the be- nighted natives the knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus ? Does your church ever put up an intercession in behalfofthe.se men — present their special claims before God, and entreat him to succeed their undertakings ? Ah ! sir, they are " passed over." Still further, it may be inquired, whether there are special prayers in your liturgy for public seminaries and places of education, that they may be greatly multi- plied, and preserved from error, and blessed as a means of extending truth and righteousness throughout the land ? And then there is the temperance reformation. Does your prayer- book make any allusions to it? Does it con- tain any thanksgiving to Almighty God for the immense good that has been already thus ac- complished, or any supplications that he would speedily bring all ranks and classes to unite in promoting this great and good cause ? I might request you to inform me besides, what notice your church has hitherto taken in her formularies of such a giant iniquity as the slave trade ? Whether she entreats the Lord to absolve Britain of the guilt of having so long sanctioned and upheld it, and earnestly prays that the infamous traffic in human flesh may, throughout all the earth, be speedily and for ever abolished ? These, and other instan- ces which I might easily adduce, will serve to give you an idea how meagre andMimited after all is your " wonderful " liturgy. Here are a number of topics of deep interest, which may be supposed to be introduced and dwelt on as opportunity calls, by all the churches in these lands, but to which the Church of England, tied down and trammelled by her forms, has never, on one single occasion, made the most distant reference. She may desire to allude to them, but she cannot. They are not in her books. They are among the things which, to use your words, " find themselves passed over." How, with these plain facts before your eyes, you could indulge in such " vain boastings " aboutthe "comprehensiveness" of yourprayer- book, I really cannot " comprehend." I come now to your third objection to our manner of public prayer, — It tends to betray the church into error, leaves it open to the en- croachments of unsound doctrine. I proposed to you, if this were true, to account to me for the doctrinal purity of the Church of Scotland, and of the Covenanting and Secession churches of Ulster, all of them unblessed with a liturgy. With regard to the two latter bodies, you do not make a single remark ; they were too in- significant, probably, to receive from such a lofty prelatist " the compliment of observation." But with respect to the Scottish church, I re- minded you that she had her ' Confession,' but no prayer-book ; and I called on you to show me how it was that without the latter she con- tinued sound in the faith. I paused for a re- ply. And what is the reply which you have given ? Prepare yourself, reader, for a sample of Church of England logic ! Here it is— that " the Church of Scotland may have her con- fession, but you question whether it is much read by the people. It may be on their shelves, and yet but little in their hands." Well — what then ? Why, then, just the more extraordinary is it that the Scottish Zion remains pure. I ascribed her soundness in a great measure to her Confession. You tell me the Confession is not read by the bulk of the people. How, then, in all the world, seeing that she has no liturgy, has she been kept from error? This is the' riddle — it is still unread. This is the great enigma still unsolved. I once more call on you to expound it. You tell me, that " Arianism has stigmatized DOES NOT TEND TO FOSTER ERROR IN THE CHURCH. 231 the presbyterian church in Ireland." I en- quired before, and I enquire again — How then docs it come to pass, that that church has pur- ged itself from Arianism, without the aid of a liturgy f How ims it been able to repel in this instance unsound doctrine, without this indispensable "bulwark against heresy"? You say, a little farther on— "But now for your objection to the theory of this advantage 1 am noticing." I transcribe the sentence with " syllabic accuracy." What is the meaning of it ? I cannot tell — " Davus sum non CEdipus." " Your objection to the theory of this advan- tage I am noticing ! " — it sounds as like non- sense as any sentence of English I ever read. Immediately after tins effusion, you indulge, by way of variety, in three consecutive mis- representations. First, you ask me — " Is then the pulpit the conservative resource against heresy ? " You know well enough that pres- byieriaus do not believe that it is ; that they have never held or avowed such an opinion ; and yet you here dishonestly attempt to fasten it on them. Secondly, you say — " Antiuom- ianism distinguishes Independency." I utterly deny the statement. It is a pure calumny. The church which boasts such men as an Ur- wick and a Rallies can afford to despise the in- furiate assaults of a Gregg, and the puny in- sinuations of a Boyd. Thirdly, you say — " Socinianism lias overspread the once pure presbyterian churches of England." This is a stale imputation, originated by the Eclectic Review, repeated by Dr. Boyton in Dublin, and eagerly taken up and retailed by you, in your small way, in Deny. In ' Presbyter- ianism Defended,' I distinctly denied that the churches referred to were now, or had been, when they lapsed into heresy, in any important point of government or discipline, presbyterian.* I challenged you and Dr. Boyton to substan » I insert here in reference to this point the follow- ing v nt' noes from " Mene Tekel : " — " It is a notorious fact thut the Unitarian congregations in England at the present day, Alas i no. Not even by churchmen is this result an- ticipated. All are aware that while an outward tem- porary submission has been procured, the disease has but struck inwards, and " eating as doth a can- ker" into the vitals of the church, will now prevail more extensively and more dangerously than ever. Hear for instance the acknowledgment of the Derry Sentinel (an episcopal organ) on this point : (April 17th ) "The evil is not abated by putting a stop to the publication of the Tracts. These dangerous prin- ciples will continue to be disseminated lrom pulpits and lecture rooms, till the bishops of the Church in England exercise the episcopal authority to rid tha church of those who profess them." And why do they not do so i That is the question. Cau we But even were the case not so urgent as I have shown it to be, are we to understand from the language you employ, that you regard the church as having a right to suspend her exercise of discipline on the comparative mag- nitude of the crime with which she has to deal ? Has she received a warrant to give her sanction to false doctrine, so long as it is not very fla- grant or extensive ? Is it a part of her com- mission from her great King and Head, that she is to obey his law and assert his claims only in great emergencies ? Has she a right to permit poison to be administered to her people, because the dose is not so large or the quality so deadly as it might be — to allow ra- vening wolves to prowl about among the flock, because, in her opinion, it would be " a mark- ed proceeding " to expel them ? In a w T ord, is she to regulate her duty as a Christian church by the maxims of a fleeting earthly policy, rather than by the immutable law of the Saviour ? " Our prelates," you say, " may look calmly on while these questions float about in the regions of scholarship." — Really, sir, this is sickening. I could laugh at your absurdity did I not grieve for your infatuation. " Look calmly on, " indeed ! I ask, what else can your prelates do ? What power have they to arise and act, to legislate for the safety of the church, and vindicate the honour of their Master ? None whatever. Why then not out with the whole truth at once, that your church is utterly enslaved, that her bishops cannot and dare not of themselves assemble, and that it rests with the civil authorities of the land whether they shall now or ever be permitted to meet as a court of Christ, to abjure the heresies that they have so long been guilty of sanc- tioning, and expel from the office of the holy ministry those false teachers that have "privily brought them in " ? I have thus shown how baseless is your idea that liturgies shield a church from error, while free prayer lays her open to its encroachments. The Church of Scotland is pure without a prayer-book, the Church of England, even with this " precious boon," is, at this moment, de- veloping a form of popery within her bosom, and has long, it is well known, been tainted to the very core with the leaven of the grossest Arminianism. Till these anomaliesbe explain- ed to our satisfaction, you will never obtain draw any other inference than this, either that (as the Sentinel expresses it iu the article referred to) this state of things indicates in the Archbishops and Bishops themselves "a leaning towards Romanise," — or that they are prevented by the Erastiauisrn of the Church over which they preside from put- ting forth one vigorous and united effort to crush the glowing evil I — Oh I when will the Church of England, for once in her history, assume the attl. tude of an honest, fearless, independent Witness for the truth I Where are her Convocations f Where her discipline I — But is it not idle, and worse than idle in her sycophantic panegyrists to boast of her forms securing her from error, at the very time when Popery is ravaging her strongholds, and the church, as a church, to her eternal Khame, has not yet stood forth to shield her people from its en- croachments r PRAYER-BOOKS NOT THE CEMENTERS OF THE CHURCH. 235 our assent to the theory you are so anxious to establish. I come now to your last objection to our manner of worship — it possesses no power of tiniting nr holding the church together. You speak of " the union, the almost fraternal feel- ing produced on (in ?) the mind by the common adoption of the same words of worship," " the bond of brotherhood that is thus created be- tween the churchman of England and the churchman of distant climes." In all this, it is implied that you have little or no fraternal feeling or bond of brotherhood with any of those bodies of Christians throughout the world that have not adopted " the same words of worship " with yourselves. What a flattering testimony to the catholicity of the Church of England ! She cannot cherish such a frater- nal feeling as she might desire, towards the vast sections of evangelical protestantism that spread themselves throughout Britain, the con- tinent, and America — for why? -they have no prayer-books ! The stream of her brotherly love flows only in a liturgic channel. Ere the chord of her affections can be made to vibrate, it must be touched by a liturgic hand. Instead of '' girdling the world with her sympathies," she narrows them down to those ecclesiastical commuuitiesthat can adopt her shibboleth, and between whom and herself, no wall of" words" has arisen to affect a separation. It is necessary to remind you, however, that this limited sphere in which you permit your fraternal feelings to range, is perhaps even still more circumscribed than you imagine. You tell us of the " churchman of England having the same words of worship with the churchmen of all those distant climes where the Church of England has a daughter." I am concerned to inform you, sir, that there is one large section of your church in a distant clime which has, with sacrilegious hand, great- ly ultered the prayer-book, and consequently whose " words of worship," every successive Sabbath, are, in many respects, different from your own ! I refer to the episcopal church of America. What is to be done with her? Alas ! the bond of brotherhood, the mystic tie of words and syllables that bound you to her is for ever broken. Henceforth, the breezes that rutlle the surface of the Atlantic shall no more convey to her the emotions of your sym- pathy and love, but shall waft over only your sighs and lamentations at her mournful falling away. But perhaps you will tell me that your feel- ings are sufficiently elastic to surmount the obstacles presented by trilling verbal variations — and in that case you will doubtless have comfort in reflecting that there is another church with which, by the adoption of nearly tlic same " words of worship," you are enabled abundantly to fraternise. You cannot have forgotten the wonderful similarity that exists between your liturgy and that of the Church <;/ Rome. Let me mention a few interesting f.u ts illustrative of this, four liturgy, you must be aware, is mainly taken out of hers. To use the language of a very learned divine : — " From three Romish channels was the Eng- lish service raked together. From the Brevi- ary the common prayers are taken. From the Ritual the administration of the sacraments, burial, matrimony, and the visitation of the sick, are taken. From the Mass-book the con- secration of the Lord's supper, collects, gospels, and epistles, are taken." * You remember, I presume, the terms in which king Edward VI spoke of your service-book in his letter to the Devonshire popish rebels. He says: — "As for the service in the English tongue, it per- haps seems to you a new service, and yet in- deed, it is no other but the old, the self-same words in English, for nothing is altered but to speak with knowledge that which was spokon with ignorance, only a few things taken out, so fond that it had been a shame to have heard them in English." f I am aware that several alterations have taken place since, but that these are not very considerable, the Common Prayer-book itself teaches us, in the Preface, in which it says that "the main body and es- sentials of it, as well in the chiefest materials as in the frame and order thereof, have still continued the same unto this day." Slight in- deed must have been the changes introduced into it when we hear king James, in his speech to the General Assembly held at Edinburgh in 1590, using this language with respect to it: " As for our neighbour Kirk of England, their service is an ill-said mass in English." \ And without multiplying illustrations of the har- mony of your service-book with that of Rome, I would just remind you that popes Pius and Gregory offered to queen Elizabeth to confirm the English liturgy; § and that the pious bishop Hall, (in his ' Quo Vadis,') bears the following testimony ; that his " eyes and ears can wit- ness with what applause the Catholics enter- tained the new translated liturgy of the church.',' Here, then, sir, you have " ample scope and verge enough " for the indulgence of your "fraternal feelings." Here, in the common adoption of the " same words of worship," you have a " bond of brotherhood " which connects you not merely with the thinly-scattered com- munities of episcopacy, but with the multitu- dinous hosts of popery. Your prayer-book is the grand cementer— the mysterious ligament which binds your church not merely to her " daughters," but also to her " mother," by which the churchman of England may feel himself united to the churchman el' Rome. Xbu say, in presenting in another aspect this objection of yours to free prayer, which I * " Nam liber late Anplicnniis ronflntitr ex tribtis Pontlficioruni libris Lltnrglcl*, Hrrvi.n *o, Missall, et Uitunli. Purs primn nempe precuni publicarum ex llreviaro ; ordo administrandi sicrannnta celebrandi malrlmonlum, vltitsndl Inflrmoi, ct si pnltum ox EU. tuall desmnuntiir; ordo consecrandi in ccena, Evan- gella, Epistola;, Collectu; qusedam ex Missali." — Alt. Dam. p. 4.V-'. ed. 1708. + Holinsbed's Hist, and Fox's Actiand Mom. : < ulderwoods Ch. Hist. p. 2.'x'i. i See Cambden's Life of Queen Eliiabeth, and Heylln'e Hist, of Ref. 236 FORMS OF PRAYER—ADVANTAGES OF FREE PRAYER. am now considering, that in consequence of using it as a substitute for a liturgy, a declining church has nothing to save her from destine ■ tion. You have the following language — I be- seech the reader to mark it well. " In such circumstances, (you are referring to a period of spiritual declension,) a church must either fall off to heresy, or fall to pieces, if she hare not. a liturgy to keep her in existence " ! Let me help you to an apt illustration of this ex- traordinary fact. The Synod of Ulster, some time since, had sunk into a state of religious apathy. She exhibited a decline of zeal, and a decay of spirituality. She was destitute of a liturgy — and mark the result. She fell off into heresy — yea, fell to pieces — yea, sunk at last into total non-existence ! She is now among the things that were ; no trace of her is visible; not a single church once connected with her remains, " to tell where a synod had been." It is vain to point us to nearly three hundred thriving congregations— to tell us that the Ulster synod is still in being, restored to great- er purity and zeal than ever, and spreading herself throughout the length and breadth of the land. This is all mere hallucination ; we know better— for has it not been proved, by a great modem logician, that a declining church must either " fall off to heresy or fall to pieces, if she have not a liturgy to keep her in exis- tence " ? I would desire, sir, to treat these statements of yours seriously, but it is difficult. "A li- turgy the only apparatus for keeping the fabric of the church together"! What can you mean? Will you tell us that the Son of God has pro- vided no other means for reviving and main- taining pure religion among his people than furnishing them with books of common prayer? Will you have us to believe that when the light that burns in the golden candlesticks has be- come dim, there is no torch but this to relume the expiring flame? Have the great majority of the Christian churches been left for ages without such an instrumentality, so indispen- sable to their well-being, and which could so easily have been imparted ? And must the servants of the Redeemer now, when in any place piety begins to wither, and the " love of many to wax cold," give themselves up to utter despair, and relinquish every hope of a revival, not because the Spirit of God has withdrawn himself, but because prayer-books do not abound in the land ? Was ever any thing ad- vanced in the present age parallel to this ? Such sentiments as these, sir, are too absurd for argument. They deserve only to be met by a burst of reprobation. Having thus disposed of your objections to conceived prayer, I proceed to mention some of the arguments which may be advanced in its favour, and by which its superiority over precomposed set forms may be exhibited. The first which I shall specify is, that it is better calculated than the latter mode of worship to leave opportunity for the working of the Spirit. I perceive that, with your usual want of can- dour, you have misrepresented the meaning I wished to convey in bringing forward this ar- gument in ' Presbyterianism Defended.' You represent me as holding that it is utterly im- possible that the influences of the Spirit can descend on a congregation worshipping by forms. And you immediately break forth into a rhapsodical appeal to " thousands of church Christians " to say from their own experience whether this be so. Now, I have only to say, that I never designed to convey the idea which you endeavour to twist out of my words. I said I could not see how " the use of forms could be vindicated from the charge of stinting the Spirit." Does this mean that they exclude the Spirit altogether ? When we speak of the operations of an agent being stinted, that is, cramped, limited, restricted, do we mean there- by that they entirely cease ? The very term that I used shows how unwarranted is the in- terpretation you attempt to fix on my language. Having noticed this little device to which you have had recourse in order to turn away attention from the point at issue, I proceed to renew and reiterate my charge, that confining men to certain fixed forms of prayer does, in a certain sense, tend to restrict the divine agency. I assume in the outset this principle, and I conceive it is one which no evangelical minister will for a moment gainsay, that the servants of Christ, in conducting this part of worship, are assisted both as to the matter and manner of it by the Spirit of God. He is pro- mised to the church as " the Spirit of grace and supplications," and the apostle Paul teaches us, that while " we know not what we should pray for as we ought," " the Spirit helpeth our in- firmities." Let me quote here the comment of Dr. Whitby, on the text of which these words form a part : " The Spirit of God," says he, "is said to intercede for us — as an exciter or director of us in our addresses to God, to rend- er them for matter according to the will of God, and for manner fervent and effectual." Let us hear on the same point the pious bishop Wil- kins. "The Spirit of God," he says, "must be our guide and assistance in this duty. — Be- cause the Spirit does excite our hearts to pray and infuse in us holy desires, stirring us up to and instructing us in our duty, therefore he is said to intercede for us." * Now, bearing in mind the important truth thus established, that the Holy Ghost aids ministers of the gospel in conducting the devotions of the church, not only by suggesting to them suitable holy de- sires, but by enabling them, in the use of or- dinary means, to give to these a becoming ex- pression — bearing I say, these things carefully in mind, let me submit to you the following considerations. The prayers of your liturgy cousist of a certain number of pre-arranged unchanging petitions. The matter, therefore, of your public devotions can hardly be said to be directed or ordered by the Spirit, unless we are to suppose that he leads all the ministers of all your churches, each successive Sabbath, in the one unvarying beaten track of supplica- * Gift of Prayer. IT DOES NOT TEND TO STINT THE SPIRIT. 237 tion. Nor can we readily sec how ministers or people can be led to depend implicitly on the Holy Spirit for the furnishing of suitable topics of entreaty, seeing that these are already laid down in a certain order and method in the book of Common Prayer. Again, it should be recollected that God is exceedingly jealous of the purity of his worship. He who so exactly defined the manner of legal devotion, ordered every pin of the tabernacle, and would not ac- cept of strange lire, even though presented as an offering to himself, must certainly be re- garded as expecting and requiring that his worship now should be conducted, both as to the matter and the manner of it, in conformity to his revealed will. Now, you can hardly need to be told that he has never given the slightest warrant for the imposition of humanly - devised forms of prayer. You cannot butkuow that throughout the whole Bible, there is not the shadow of authority given to any man, or set of men, to prescribe the confessions and thanksgivings and petitions of the Christian people a and to insist that in the use of these, and of these alone, shall they ever be permit- ted to address their Maker. This is unques- tionably an instance of the most intolerable ecclesiastical presumption. No matter how ex- cellent the forms may be which are prescribed, the very prescribing of them is utterly indefen- sible. It is an intruding of the will and the invention of man into the worship of the living God. Will God be pleased with this? Will his " free Spirit " delight to impart his influ- ences through a medium, the very ordaining of which is an imputation on his wisdom and an implied reflection on his grace ? We say not that he "ill withhold his sanctifying grace from the true members of the church, because presumptuous men, in enforcing on them certain prescribed petitions, have trenched on his pre- rogative. Far be it from us to say so. We be- lies e that his true worshippers, e\en when pla- ced in the most untoward circumstances, and obliged to draw near to him through the me- dium of unrighteously enacted forms, will find him overpassing all such human restrictions, and drawing nigh to them in the communica- tions of his mercy. But we do believe, at the same time, that it is less likely that the divine Spirit will, by his presence and favour, honour an institute which, in one respect at bast, is unsanctioned by hlS word, and which ill ils very construction tends to limit his operations, than one, in which his people " ask according tn his trill," and the sen ices of which, the Bible testifies, he hath " required at their hands." I have said, " which in its \ery construction tends to limit his operations ; " and is not this the ease with your liturgy ? Does it not oblige the minister, every time lie enters the pulpit, to use constantly and unaltexingly the same form of words.' Now suppose that on the Ba turday evening be feels his mind strongly im- pressed with the necessity of wrestling with God in public prayer next day for some spe- cial blessing of which his people stand in need — what is he to do :' It may not possibly be mentioned at all in the prayer I k, or at least not with such fulness or speciality as he would wish. What alternative is then left for him but to repress the struggling desire he feels within him — and is not this to stint the Spirit of God ? Or, on the morning of the Sabbath, immediately before sermon, he may feel his soul led out to make confessions of sin for which he finds nothing answerable in his books, or to present intercessions in behalf of his flock, which are not written there — is he at liberty to follow the leadings of the Spirit, and run after him when he thus " draws him " and " en- larges his heart"? He dares not. Under heavy penalties he must keep down all such desires, and confine himself to meagre forms eiimppsed hundreds of years ago, and which are enforced on conscience by the authority of civil rulers. Is there no stinting of the Spirit in this? As illustrative and corroborative of this argument, I would remind you of the ex- traordinary language used by certain of your church governors in days not lung past. " Wo heartily desire," said the eleven bishops and other dignified clergy at the Savoy conference, " that great care be taken lu suppress thuse pri- vate conceptions of prayer before and after set - num." * Truly, sir, if this be not " stinting" the operations of the Spirit of God, I know not what is. I may here obviate an objection which you hriug forward in attempting to escape from this charge. You say that our manner of prayer is as justly liable to such an imputation as your own. You tell us that the presbyteriau con- gregation prays by a form which the minister makes for them. You have this language: the people " may wish to pray for something else than his fancy or convenience dictates, but they cannot." That is, in other words, when the minister of Christ enters the pulpit on the Sabbath morning as the " mouth " of the people of God, he and they are left to the promptings of human fancy or convenience! Who could have conceived that BUCha sentiment as this c uld have been deliberately placed on record, in the present day ,bv an evangelical pro- tBStantclerg) man! A sentiment which is based on the total denial or forgetfulness of the work of the Holy Spirit in assisting ministers in the discharge of the most important of the services of the sanctuary ! Sir, I would feel it my duty to chastise you severely for giving utterance to such a sentiment, were it not thai I am dis- posed to ascribe its expression to the bewilder- ment of a mind endeavouring by any shift to escape from an argument that it cannot meet, rather than to any settled opinion you have on the subject. I am sure when you calmly re- flect, you will yourself sic, that your languago is quite indefensible. But now for your objection. The presby- teriau congregation dors undoubtedly pray by a form — but oj what hind! 1 — thai is the ques- tion. Why a form which their minister has not been compelled to receive from the hands of civil rulers, thus tacitly acknowledging that tin \ are the best judges of what ( lnist's pen pie think and feel; and a form which he is at * See the Conference, p. &7- 238 FORMS OF PPvAYER.— UNSUITED TO A TIME OF REVIVAL. perfect liberty to vary as often as (under the directing aid of the Holy Spirit) he may see it needful or desirable, for the wants and cir- cumstances of his flock. Nor, in the joining in the prayers thus offered up, can the people be at all stinted or embarrassed. They have confidence in their minister. He has not been thrust on them at the mandate of a bishop, but has been called, in divine providence, by their own free suffrages, to take the oversight of them in the Lord, and has been designated to his work by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. They know that when they meet on the Sabbath they meet in the. name of Christ, that he who appears before them in Christ's stead is, so far as man can judge, or by legitimate means secure, duly authorised and qualified, and that to him in his public work has been promised the aid of the Holy Ghost: remembering these things, they can freely " put themselves into his hands," and join in presenting at a throne of grace, those varying confessions, and thanksgivings, and petitions, which they are taught to believe he is directed and enabled to put up in their be- half. You will thus see, sir, that your objec- tion is altogether futile. Presbyterian minis- ters do use a form, there is no doubt of it; I suppose a man cannot speak at all without re- sorting to a form of words; but, till you can show us that our prayers resemble yours in the maimer in ivhich they are appointed, and in the manner in ivhich they are used, you will never convict us of inconsistency, in charging your liturgy with " stinting " the Spirit. Having thus pointed out what is the natural tendency of your forms, it may not be amiss to inquire for a moment, what comment fact and experience offer upon the preceding ob- servations. What has been the result pro- duced on the religious interests of churches, in consequence of conducting their public devo- tions through the medium of stated forms? I am very far from desiring to draw invidious comparisons between the piety of episcopalian and of other communities. Fully persuaded am I, that there are in the communion of the Church of England as devout and holy persons as in any other in the world. But I would ask, viewing her as a church, has it been found that vital godliness has revived and flourished within the pale of the establishment, as it has been found occasionally doing in other religious bodies ? Have her ministrations been blessed to the promotion of revivals such as have mark- ed the history of other churches — seasons of awakening and " refreshing," in which signal tokens of the Spirit's presence have been vouchsafed, and " multitudes added unto the Lord, both men and women " ? Has her his- tory furnished any parallels to the awakenings in America and Britain, to the scenes of al- most pentecostal triumph which have distin- guished Northampton or Kilsyth ? With re- gard to the recent work of God in the latter place, it is a fact by no means uninstructive to the. thoughtful Christian, that it has been mainly ascribed, by the venerable minister who has been the honoured instrument of car- rying it forward, to the influence, under the divine Spirit, of earnest, persevering, special prayer. He describes the fervent petitions which had been for a length of time offering up, not only in the social prayer-meetings which were organized, but in the church itself, with express reference to a revival of religion. And when at length the day long waited for arrived, and " the Spirit was poured out from on high," he bears testimony to the memor- able fact, that public free prayer was blessed as one of the chief instrumentalities for draw- ing down his quickening and reviving influen- ces on the church. " It has also been," says he, " matter of general remark, that there is an unction and deep solemnity in the prayer of the preacher tvho has been honoured to begin this work, and which, perhaps, even more than the sermons, has made ivay to the heart." When we read such a statement as this — when we think of the wonderful manifestations of the power of grace, of which the parish of Kilsyth has been lately the scene ; and when we call to mind by what instrumentality these have been mainly brought about, must we not feel how just is the following comment on them by a pious living writer: — "If there is to be a revival in any church, the eyes of the believ- ers therein must be more steadily and frequently fastened on this object, and there must be a more constant and decided reference to it in their prayers. How can an awakening be ex- pected so long as Christians content themselves with a vague aimless system oj supplication " ? These remarks deserve the serious conside- ration of episcopalians. Let them bethink themselves whether the lifelessness that, ge- nerally speaking, has hitherto pervaded their churches, may not be in a great measure tra- ced to the " vague and aimless system of pray- ing " that has been so long and so preposter- ously persevered in. Let them put it to them- selves, how fixed forms would have suited and sufficed at the late communion in Kilsyth — the ever-memorable 22nd September, when from ten to fifteen thousand individuals were as- sembled to "draw water out of the wells of sal- vation." Let them think what would have been the effect, if the ministers, who on that solemn occasion were the mouth of the people to God, instead of offering up suitable and sea- sonable invocations, instead of summoning up before them the memory of the past, dwelling on the privilege of the present, and beseeching the " God of all grace " that he would " con- tinue unto them his loving-kindness " for the future — if, instead of all this, they had read out of the prayer-book a collection of bare and ba- ren forms, not one syllable of which had im- mediate reference to the august and elevating and overwhelming scenes amid which they were recited ? I put it to yourself, sir, to say what would have been the effect thus produ- ced ? Can you imagine — is it possible to con- ceive of any thing more calculated to - arrest the progress of the work that was going on, to chill the desires and blight the hopes of auxi- FREE PRAYER CAN BE ADAPTED TO EXIGENCIES IN THE CHURCH. 239 ous converts, to freeze up every current of spi- ritual feeling, and banish the Spirit of God from the place which he had already so abun- dantly watered, and on which the dews of his grace were still continuing to descend? Forms of prayer, sir, rest assured, will never do, when a real revival of religion is to be originated or promoted in the church of Christ. A second advantage of unrestricted prayer is, that it may be adapted to the exigencies of the church or of particular Christians. You seem to imagine that this gives our form of worship no superiority over yours. You say, that in any case of peculiar trial or affliction among the members of the flock, the Church of England can on the succeeding Sabbath present her intercessions on their behalf. And then you quote the general formula of suppli- cation which she has indited for such cases, beginning — "We commend to thy fatherly mercy," &c, and ending — " giving them pa- tience under their sufferings, and a happy issue out of all their afflictions." Now, I was by no means unaware, that you had this general for- mula ; but you must see that its existence does not by any means obviate the objection. The objection is, that being tied to a form, you can- not enter into the case with either such com- prehensiveness or such speciality as may be frequently' desirable.* You cannot arrange, modify, expand, or contract your requests, in such a way as circumstances may demand, and as may be best calculated to affect the minds and sympathies of the worshippers. You must say over what is in your book ; however urgent the case may be, you can say no more ; how- ever unimportant, no less. Now, such a mode of public intercession is no more appropriate (to use the apt illustration of an old writer,) than would be the application of a general re- medy to suit all manner of particular diseases. And therefore, that sensible prelate, bishop Wilkius, (to whose testimonies against you, by the way, you take special can' never In allude,) in referring to this point, makes these very pertinent remarks: — "How can a man thus suit his desires unto several emergencies? What one says of counsel to be had from a book, may be fitly applied to this prayer by book, that it is commonly flat and dead, floating too much in generalities, and nut particular enough for each several occasion. There is nut that life and vigour in it, to engage the affec- tions, as when it proceeds immediately from the soul itself, and is th^ natural expression of those particulars whereof we are most sensible."f Your prayers for public emergencies labour under the same disadvantage. Yen remind me that your church has provided certain forms for certain specified occasions, such as a time of pestilence, of drought, and of famine, and then you state further, in a style of rather un- * The force of this objection has been fully acknow- ledged by Dr. Valey — " Forms of prayer," pays he, " composed in one age become unlit tor another, by the unavoidable change of language, ciicumstanceo, and opinions." This the Dr. propose* to remedy by "oc- casional revisions of the liturgy." + Gift of Prayer. happy metaphor, that when a " tempest visits the earth and the heart of the husbandman sinks within him, there is a weapon in the church's armoury ;" that is,— a prayer for fair weather ! You mention also, in a note, as an instance of the forethought of your church, that she has provided a form to be used on the occasion of a naval victory. And you tell us how a British admiral once used it after a suc- cessful engagement, and how an officer of the enemy who was present was amazed at the " sagacious piety of the fathers of the English church." Now, this is all very well; but you might have added that, sagacious as they were, they forgot to insert in the prayer-book a form to be used after a defeat. How is this ? Surely it could not have been their opinion that those who fight their country's battles should only pray to God when they are victorious ! We may rather suppose that they had such an un- due dependence on the courage and gallantry of British seamen, that they could not allow themselves to entertain the idea that they could possibly be overcome. With regard to these several formulas to which you refer, I might content myself with saying with the good old bishop, "they are commonly something fiat and dead, floating too much in generalities." I can proceed farther, however, and show that in addition to those which have been mentioned, there are frequent public emergencies occurring which your church could not contemplate, and for which she has made no provision. You have said nothing of the two instances of this kind which I gave you in the notes to ' Presbyterianism Defended. ' One was, that when the prince of Orange land- ed in England in 1688, it was well known the body of the English clergy favoured his attempt, yet for several months after, they not only were obliged in law, but actually did pray for king James, begging in the words of the liturgy that God would "confound the devices of his enemies." Another still more ridiculous in- stance was that when prince George of Denmark, her majesty's husband, was dead, the clergy continued as formerly to pray for issue to her majesty, till that clause of the liturgy was dis- charged by an order of council! Was not this a bright illustration of the " almost peculiar propriety" of forms? Another curious instance I met with lately. "In the year 1703," says a dissenting minister of that period/'wehad a most terrible storm that affrighted the whole nation. This happened on a Saturday, and the next Lord's day, the dissenting clergy every where humbled themselves before God, and bewailed their own and the people's sins. But the churchmen were forced to wait some time till the bishops could meet together, and draw up a form for this purpose, and get it printed and dispersed through the nation." Was not this, sir, a pretty predicament for thousands of Chris- tian ministers to be placed in, that they eouldnot come with their people before God to depre- cate his wrath and implore his mercy till bi- shops might find it convenient to assemble; that the public confessions and intercessions 240 FORMS OF PRAYER.— ADVANTAGES OF FREE PRAYER. of Christ's people should be suspended on the fidelity and despatch of printers and post- masters ? But I can give you many other in- stances of the unsuitableness of your system to meet emergencies. Suppose, for example, that an ungodly king were to be placed on the throne of these realms; could your church pray for his conversion ? Not at all. She must still continue to describe him as a " most gracious king," though aware that he was the very re- verse, and to give " hearty thanks to God for setting him over this nation in his grace and providence, " though perfectly conscious that he was set over it in judgment for the nation's sins. This simple illustration will show you the vast inconvenience of your forms — causing a whole church in such a case as this, to de- clare what is not true, and prevent her from imploring a blessing which is urgently required. Take another instance. It is but the other day I saw in a London newspaper, a letter purport- ing to be from an episcopali an minister, in which he greatly laments, that on the occasion of the late auspicious union of our beloved sovereign with Prince Albert, he was unable to offer up the prayers of his people to God that the union might be blessed to the happiness of the illus- trious parties, and to the prosperity of this em pire. He had, as yet, got no form for the oc ■ casion from the bishops. He speaks very feel- ingly of the hardship of his situation. The dissenters around him, and even the Roman Catholics, were putting up frequent petitions every Sabbath for her majesty and her consort, while as yet, he had never been permitted to open his lips on the subject. I wonder (and perhaps you could inform me,) whether any of his episcopal brethren on this side the channel were involved in this matter, in the difficulties under which he laboured. * But to take a case nearer home. You remember, doubtless, the alarming conflagration that lately took place in the city of Deny. On the succeeding Sab- bath morning your own mind and the minds * In relation to this point it may be well here to quote theremarkablelanguageofa well-written pamph- let, recently published, and entitled, "An Appeal on behalf of Church government, addressed to the Pre- lates and Clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland." The author is a churchman — and among the various topics which he handles, he deeply laments that on tbe occasion of the late atrocious attempt by the maniac Oxford, to takeaway the life of our gracious sovereign, while every other religious denominationin the empire could and did spontaneously offer thanks- givings for her preservation, the Church of England was unable to express its loyalty, till commanded to do so by tbe queen herself. He then proceeds to record the following memorable and well-known fact, which strikingly illustrates the religious slavery of that church. "In Ireland," says he, "an order was issued to the bishops to draw up a form of prayer for the occasion. This order emanated from the privy council, and to it were attached the signatures of some gentlemen, who are known to be Roman Catholics. Ithas been said that there was an indelicacy in their attaching their names to such a document. It is very evident, however, that the suppression of their names would merely have tend- ed to conceal — not to alter the strange fact that the Church of England is subject to the authority of per- sons not its members."' — Well indeed may the writer call this " a strange fact.'* Here we have a protestant church degraded to the humiliating position of receiv- ing from popish privy councillors " authority " to pre- pare petitions to the throne of grace! A Church of of your congregation would, of course, be deeply impressed with the remembrance of the awful scene. How did you manage ? Did you ex- press to God the fervent thanksgivings of all for that merciful interposition by which the progress of the devouring element was arrest- ed? Did you commend to the sympathies of your fellow-Christians, those who had suffered in their property by the dispensation, and en- treat that similar calamities might be warded off in future from the city, and that the one which had just occurred might be sanctified to its inhabitants ? Did you, sir, say all this, or any thing like this ? Not you indeed. And why? Every Sabbath morning, you earnestly beseech deliverance from many evils of which there appears to bebut little immediate danger; for instance, from " lightning and tempest " during very excellent weather ; from " plague and pestilence " when the public health is by no means bad ; from " famine " when every one seems to have the necessaries of life, and from " battle " during a period of profound tranquillity. Why then, on that particular Sabbath, did you not pursue the line of sup- plication which has been pointed out, especi- ally when you felt that you had a call of pro- vidence urging you to adopt it ? Why ? for the best of all reasons, because you could dis- cover nothing of the kind in your books. You must thus be convinced that it is a mighty in- convenient thing for men to pray, at all times, by printed forms and stereotyped intercessions. You must see that it is a signal advantage of free prayer that ministers can readily adapt it to the emergencies of the church and of its members, instead of being obliged to pursue, on all occasions, the usual round of vague and irrelevant supplication. Another advantage of free prayer which I shall mention is, that it is calculated to hare a favourable influence on ministers. " The prin- cipal danger," says the celebrated Richard Baxter, " of the constant use of prescribed forms is, lest it should let in an unworthy ministry into the church." I am well aware that no church on earth is wholly free from the sore evil of graceless pastors, and that no means that has ever been devised can effectu- ally or completely exclude them. But I am of opinion that there is less likelihood that in- efficient and worldly-minded men will seek office in a church in "which they know before- hand they will be required, in the diligent ex- ercise of their own gifts, and in dependence on the Spirit's aid, to lead every Sabbath the pub- lic devotions of the people; than in one which, in addition to the other attractions it presents to persons of such a character, requires no fur- ther qualifications from them for the right conducting of this part of its service, than a tolerable measure of proficiency in reading the English language. And then, with regard to Christ waiting on antichrist for permission to worship Gotland honour the queen, and depending to a certain extent on antichrist for the quality of the worship which she is to offer, and the amount of loyalty she is to exhibit ! Alas ! for the Church of England: ADVANTAGES OF FREE PRAYER. 241 those who are already in the ministry, and who may be sincere and religious men, may not the same cause be expected to have on them also an operation decidedly disadvanta- geous? When they know that this part of their public duty can be performed quite as well with an unprepared as a prepared mind, will they be led to " give as much diligence " as they would otherwise do, in seeking that they may be fitted to discharge it ? If they feel that they will acquit themselves quite as well, and edify the people just as much, when their frame of mind is cold and sluggish, as when it is lively and devout, will they then be as prone to guard against the former, and to endeavour to maintain the latter? On the contrary, will they not be strongly tempted (for ministers are but men) to give way to spi- ritual sloth, and neglect the " stirring up of their gifts,'' thus depriving their flocks of all the benefit which their habitual exercise and progressive improvement would be calculated to alford ? Hear bishop Wilkins : " For any one to sit down and satisfy himself with this book prayer or some prescript forms, so as to go no farther, this were still to remain in his infancy and not to grow up in his new nature; this would be as if a man, who had once need of crutches, were still to use them, and so ne- cessitate himself to a continual impotence." Let me relate to you, while on this point, the following anecdote mentioned by Dr. Calamy : " When Thomas Watson was in the pulpit on a lecture day before the Bartholemew act took place, there came in that reverend and learned prelate, bishop Richardson, who was so well pleased with his sermon, but especially with his prayer after it, that he followed him home to give him thanks, and earnestly desired a copy of his prayer. Alas ! said Mr. Watson, that is what I cannot give, for I do not use to pen my prayers, it was no studied thing but offered as God enabled me, from the abundance of my heart and affection, pro re nata. Upon which the good bishop went away, wondering that any man could pray in that way extem- pore." This little narrative is quite in point. It illustrates well the subject to which I have been adverting. The wonderment of the old bishop, habituated so long to Ins own mi ogre forms that he was actually unable to compre- hend how they conld possibly be dispensed with, is uncommonly instructive. The only other reason which I shall at present notice, why free prayer is to be pre- ferred t'> forms, is that it is better fitted to ex- cite and sustain the attention of the people. Dr. Faley admits this, confessing (strenuous ad- rocate as he was for liturgies) that " the per- petual repetition of the same form of words produces weariness and inalleiilircness in tltc congregation, " You say, however, you have no confidence in Psley as a witness; ho is not pious enough. Surely, then, you will not ob- ject on this score to bishop Wilkins. He was eminent alike as a philosopher and as a divine, and he bears the following testimony : " It should be especially remembered that in the use of prescript forms to which a man has been accustomed, he ought to be narrowly watchful over his own heart, for fear of the lip- service and formality which in such cas<-s we are mure expressly exposed unto. " This is an important observation. I have quoted it before: you do not however say a word about it. You inform me that you do not like " Paley's evidences " on the point ; am I to understand from your silence, that you relish those of bishop Wil- kins ? You have a much better plan, it would seem, of ascertaining whether forms produce inattention than by appealing either to the one or the other. You " can look around, " you say, when prayers are offered up in church, and from the indications of piety presented in the matter of gestures and attitudes, draw tolerably certain conclusions as to its intensity and amount. I have only to say that you have a great advantage over presby terian min- isters in being able to " look around " you during public prayer. They cannot imitate you in this " common-place experiment. " If they could put their finger to a particular page or sentence, and then cast their eyes around them, and then go on again at the place they had left off, they could doubtless form as ac- curate a judgment in the matter as yourself. But they have no time for all this. Their whole faculties are absorbed in the all-impor- tant exercise in which they are engaged. — Besides, many might be disposed to question whether the indications of piety which you profess to discover in episcopal churches be either so obvious, or so general, as to warrant your deductions. I believe that the remark has long been current among all classes of so- ciety, that no where is levity of demeanour in worship to be seen more frequently or more disgustingly exhibited than in those very chur- ches. That there may be irreverence occa- sionally shown in those of our own commu- nion, I do not at all doubt ; whether it surpas- ses, or at all equals that in yours, I leave to others to determine. — You speak of " the lis- tening attitude of a meeting house." You say that when you observed this, you " felt that to join in prayer and to hearken to prayer are very different things." In other words, that presbyterians hearken to prayers but do not join in them, or in other words still, listen, but do not pray ! This, sir, is your meaning, if your words mean any thing. And what is this but the old statement of Dr. Whatcly — the protcstunt archbishop of Dublin ? I quoted it in ' Presbyterianism Defended.' Here it is again: "Our Lord's especial blessing and fa- vourable reception of petitions are bestowed on those who agree respecting the petitions to be offered up, which is plainly impossible, in most instances at bast, if the hearers, (petition- ers they cannot properly be called), have to learn what the prayer is at the moment of its being uttered." There, sir, is an assertion by one of your prelates, which, I will venture to say, for solemn folly and intense bigotry has never yet been paralleled.* And yet this very * Another of his Orace's statements, on the occasion on which the expressions recorded in the text were used was the following : •• Extemporaneous prayer, in short, 2F 242 FORMS OF PRAYER. -ADVANTAGES OF FREE PRAYER. assertion you have not hesitated, in substance, to adopt and to reiterate. Those who worship without a liturgy, you conceive, may hearken to prayer but not join in it. How did the peo- ple of old do who listened to the extempore in- vocations of Solomon and Ezra ? What a pity of the congregations in modern times, who have been ministered to by a Chalmers or a Hall ! But I have no heart, sir, to proceed farther in the exposure of this drivelling ab- surdity. It excites in me, and I think must excite in all who contemplate it, feelings of astonishment, pity, and indignation. In attempting to show that free prayer is not preferable to forms in consequence of exciting attention, you give utterance to the following sentiment, which is truly ridiculous. The sen- timent substantially is, that there should be no attention in prayer ! Start not, worthy reader — this, I do assure you, is the new theory of the Rev. Archibald Boyd. You say, " my no- tion is, that the object we should have in view is not to excite attention, but to excite devo- tion." Again, "if I am to listen to prayer, by all means let the prayer be original, excit- ing — but if I am to pray, let me have my mind released from the temptation of being converted into a listener." Again, " in this way I wish not to have an attention excited, an interest sustained, I wish simply to be so- ber and calmly devotional " ! Did ever mor- tal man " listen " to the like of that ? Why, sir, what is devotion —where is its "main haunt and region " ? Is it not in the feelings of the heart ? And how are these to be reach- ed ? Is there any other way than through the attention, through the apprehensive and reflec- tive faculties ? If you tell an individual of any grievous fault that he has committed, or of any sad reverse that has just happened to him, and he does not attend to what you are saying — is he penetrated with regret or sorrow? Or, if you remind another of some signal in- stance of generosity in a benefactor, and he does not happen to listen to you, do you affect him with gratitude and joy ? And thus, if the worshippers in the sanctuary do not attend to whatis goingon — to the confessions and thanks- thougli it may be used in a contestation, can never, or scarcely ever he used by a congregation — it can hardly be congregational or joint prayer.'' For these monstrous sentiments, so worthy of the days of Laud, the archbishop received at the time a severe and merited castigation, in an admirable pamphlet on Extemporary Prayer, by Dr. Urwick, of Dublin. It should be remembered besides, th:xt even a large number of the clergy of the Church of England were so shocked at them, that they actually put forth a strong remon- strance against them — a movement by the way which displayed a considerable amount of independence in men so accustomed to ecclesiastical bondage. " We grieve " say they, (while endeavouring, in said remonstrance, to justify these social prayer. meetings which his Grace had so summarily interdicted), "we grieve that the line of argument adopted by your Grace, is calculated to wound and offend a very large body of sincere Christians, among whom we would name the established Church of Scotland, as it denies the character of prayer to their worship, because it is presented to God without a pre- composed form ; and with regard to ourselves, we grieve that an attempt is made to shackle our consciences, in all common supplication where two or three are met to- gether."— Signed bv fifty-seven miuist.rs of the Church of England, Dec. 14th, 1836. Sivings and petitions that are uttered— how s hall their " souls and all that is within them be stirred up " ? Does not the Holy Spirit operate in the use of means ? Does he not convey his sanctifying influences to the affec- tions through the usual medium of the atten- tion and the understanding ? — We shall con- tinue, sir, despite of all you can urge, to use both the one faculty and the other in our prayers. We believe that God demands the noblest homage that we can offer, and that all our intellectual and moral attributes should be called into fullest exercise when we bow down to worship him. Besides, we feel it to be morally impossible to join in prayer unless we listen to it ; ay, and take an interest in it too. Your sublime project of being " sober and calmly devotional," without having either at- tention excited or interest sustained, we pro- fess ourselves alike unable to practise and to comprehend. I consider it, sir, altogether unnecessary to pursue the illustration of a truth so obvious, as that fixed forms produce weariness and inat- tentiveness. — Fact, universal experience prove it. Every one feels it. Your ministers feel it, as I have shown by their own candid con- cessions. Your people feel it and are often complaining of it. This may be their fault, but it is a fault inherent in human nature, and is incurable. The love of variety is a princi- ple interwoven with our very being, and one to which our merciful God in his word, his works, and all his ways, has condescended to adapt himself. Why should not his minister- ing servants imitate him in this ? In their preaching it is deemed indispensable that they should do so, why not also in their praying ? Presbyterians rejoice that in the conducting of their public devotions there is a recognition of this obvious and important principle. They regard it as one of the chief elements in that superiority which free prayer asserts over forms, that it tends to preserve them from that stupifying dulness and formality which the perpetual iteration of the same words and phrases is so inevitably calculated to produce. I now dismiss this part of the subject. I have discussed it at considerable length, (not because I regard your arguments as of any weight; I think I have made it clear, that they are perfectly puerile and pointless,) but because I consider it important that the gene- ral inexpediency of forms, and the special de- fects of the English liturgy, should, in the pre- sent day, be faithfully exhibited. I flatter myself that this has now been done, though I hardly dare hope to your satisfaction. I had another reason for dwelling on this subject, and that is, that high church writers have been in the habit of insisting on precomposed forms as almost essential to the acceptance of Christian worship. I have already quoted the extraor- dinary language of Dr. Whately. I have shown that you yourself speak, of " the almost peculiar propriety of liturgies ; " and have not hesitated to affirm, that without them a decli- ning church must fall into heresy or into total annihilation. Bishop Bull, also, as unscrupu- BAPTISM. 2-13 lous as either of you, declares expressly that " set or prescribed forms of prayer are necessary in the public worship of God." And in ano- ther place, he records it as his belief, that from the extempore prayers of dissenters from the liturgy, as one main cause, first proceeded that irreligion and Atheism that have since over- spread the nation ! * When sentiments like these are openly maintained, and industriously propagated, by the dignitaries and self-consti- tuted champions of the Church of England, it is surely needful to vindicate the practice of those who choose to worship their Maker with- out the aid of her formularies. I believe that the considerations which I have adduced not only prove that such sentiments are utterly re- puguant to Revelation, to reason, and to fact, but constrain us to arrive at the very opposite conclusion — that never is the exercise of pub- lic devotion conducted in a manner so accept- able to God or so edifying to his people, as when forms are discarded, and ministers, led by the Spirit, allowed to offer up the desires of their hearts through the medium of free, un- restricted supplication. 6ECT. III. BAPTISM. I come now to consider some of the errors of your church on the subject of baptism. The first in order to which my attention is called is her doctrine of baptismal regeneration. I charged the Church of England, on the autho- rity of her own formularies, with holding and teaching the gross heresy that all children when baptized are certainly regenerated. How do you vindicate her? I think, sir, that every one who has read this part of your letter must have felt for you the most unfeigned pity. Something must be said in behalf of your church on this point, and in attempting her defence you betray a confusion of ideas and an unsoundness of theology most astounding and most deplorable. Let me analyse and expose in order the mass of errors and incon- sistencies into which you have fallen. First, you have a quibble about the terms of my ac- cusation. You say the Church of England does not maintain the inherent power of bap- tism t<> regenerate a child. •" She attributes not the virtue to the ml of baptism, but to the inward grace," fee. It may be so. You will please toobse'rve, however, thai this imputation I did not bring against her, though her ihIvh. cates have often used language which might tend to induce the suspicion, that it could with justice be preferred. My charge against her is that she regards baptism and regeneration as coincident and coetaneous — in other words, maintains that all who are baptized are un- doubtedly regenerated. To the assertion of this doctrine yon have fairly committed your- self You aay that the church, " knowing God to be true, and assuming that they who dedi cate the child are honest, (or in other words are Christians,) does not express the matter doubtfully — does not say perchance this child • See ' Piim. Christ.' Scrm. 13. is regenerated, for where is the ground for a perchance"? "We predicate it," say you, " because we believe that faith and faithfulness convert doubt into certainty." But you go farther, and remove every possible ground of doubt on the subject, by putting forth the fol- lowing extraordinary assertion : "Believing that God is true, and the parties appearing before him honest, meaning what they say, and seek- ing what they ask, we express it absolutely." That is, ministers of the Church of England believing that God is true, and believing that they who present the child are honest, namely, true Christians, and being aware, moreover, that " faith and faithfulness convert doubt into certainty," are consequently perfectly sure of the regeneration of every child on which they pour the waters of baptism. But let us read a few sentences farther on, and we have the following direct contradiction of what you have just said: "And were that, which we are bound to assume the fact, that the baptismal congre- gation were believers, I see not how the event could be otherwise than gracious, for faith has asked and a promise-keeping God has heark- ened." What ! there is doubt in the matter, it seems, after all ! It is quite problematical, it now appears, whether the baptismal congre- gation are really believers, consequently whe- ther the infant has been really regenerated, though immediately before you not only as- sume, but actually believe, tliat both these are undoubted truths. In the one place, you ad- mit that the utmost uncertainty hangs over the whole affair — in the other, you express the matter absolutely, declaring that there is no ground whatever " for a perchance," but that " faith and faithfulness convert doubt into cer- tainty." What a series of blunders are here ! I have pointed them out for the purpose of showing that you do not clearly comprehend even your own doctrine. So far, however, as it is possible to understand you, it appears to be that of your church, namely, that grace in- variably accompanies baptism, that every child that is baptized is " regenerate." That this doctrine is a palpable error, it will now be my business to show. Before entering on this, it may be well that I should prove that this is indeed the doctrine of the Church of England. In order to show this, I might refer to her used formularies, in which it is broadly and repeatedly advanced. Or I might point attention to certain parts of her practice— for instance, to her allow ing lay- baptism in certain emergencies to he adminis- tered, and to her refusal to read the burial ser- vice over the unbaptiaed, as affording confirma- tory proof, that in her view baptism and grace are inseparable — that they who receive the or- dinance aii' safe, that they who receive it not must perish. I shall rather adduce a lew t, s timoniea from some of her most learned di- vines,* from whose well-weighed, and delibe- • I quute the testimonies which follow in the text, with out exception, lioin ' I rarts !or the I inies,' a source of" inlorinatu.il" which Mr. Uo>d will, I am suie, ad- mit to be above all suspicion. In No. TO, the read, r 244 BAPTISM BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. rately-recorded statements we shall doubtless obtain the true interpretation of her meaning on this subject. The first I shall quote is bi- shop Jewell. He says — " The grace of God doth always work with his sacraments." Hook- er speaks of our being "new-born by that bap- tism which both declareth and maketh us Chris- tians." Bishop Taylor says — " In baptism we are born again." Bishop Patrick has this lan- guage in reference to the ordinance : " The sum of all is, that hereby we are regenerated and born again. It is the sacrament of the new birth, by which we are put into a new slate, and change all our relations ; so that as before we were children of Adam, we are now- taken to be the children of God." Hammond (a great authority) says — " In this means (re- ferring to baptism) we may expect it (regene- ration) as our church doth in the liturgy, when she presumes at every baptism that it ' hath pleased God to regenerate this infant with his Holy Spirit.' And this, he says, may prove a solemn piece of comfort to some who suspect their state more than they need, and think it impossible they should be in a regenerated condition, because they cannot find that nota- ble change in themselves they see and observe in others. These men may as well he jealous they are not men, because they cannot remember when their soul came to them " .' Is not that, we put it to the serious reader, a sample of precious doctrine from a protestant divine — an exhortation to sinners to stifle their convic- tions, to cherish a destructive self-confidence, and put the sacraments in place of the Saviour ? To come down to more modern times, we hear bishop Jebb saying— "It is enough for us to believe the prevalent sentiment of the univer- sal church from the age of the apostles, that at the time of baptism a new nature is divinely com?nunicatedand gracious principles vouchsafed in such measure and degree, that whoever are clothed with this white garment may, through God's help, keep their baptism pure and un- defined, never wilfully committing any deadly sin." And to come still nearer home, what says bishop Mant ? I quote the following an- swers from his ' Catechism : ' — " Persons are said to be regenerate or born again only once." Q. " And when do you say that is ? " A. " When they are made Christians at their baptism." Q. " Does the church teach her members to pray for the grace of regeneration at any other time ? " A. " By no means." Q. " Do you think this grace, which is given to persons at their bap- tism, a great blessing?" A. "Certainly I do ; and I heartily thank God, through Jesus Christ, that he has let me partake of that sa- crament," On this language comment is need- less. It is a recognition, in its most unquali- fied and most offensive form, of the monstrous heresy taught by your church. As expounded by this learned prelate, the doctrine of your will find a list given of no fewer than forty-one of the most eminent divines of the English church, who all maintained the following position, — " That infants are by and at baptism unconditionally translated from a state of wrath into a state of grace and acceptance, for Christ's sake." church is, " that infants are made Christians at their baptism," and that on no account should her members pray to be regenerated at any other time. No matter what doubts they may entertain in after life, no matter what con - victions of sin they may feel, or what fears of their spiritual safety may arise within them, let them by no means ask of God to regenerate their souls. This were a fatal error on their part, a practical denial of the efficacy of bap- tism, a shameful undervaluing of the benefit they enjoyed in being " allowed to partake of that sacrament." Such is the theology of bi- shop Mant — such the pabulum with which he feeds and nourishes the " cradle controversial- ists " of his extensive charge. Systematically embodied in the catechism from which we have quoted, and duly conveyed, as we may suppose they are, in the routine of parochial instruc- tion, such are the opinions with which this " church governor " is indoctrinating the rising generation of episcopalians throughout the diocese of Down and Connor ! When we think of his statements and those of the other learn- ed divines of the English church from whom we have quoted, we can no longer wonder at the following startling acknowledgment, con- tained in a recent episcopal publication : " We have seen." says the author of Essays on the Church,' * " a large section of the clergy, un- der the guidance of one of her ablest prelates, insisting that the church teaches, that in all cases, even ivhen the officiating minister is an ungodly man, and the parents and sponsors no- torious profligates, the infant over whom the service was read is still then and thereby actually regenerated ! " But it is time that I should now proceed to expose the error of this doctrine, which I have shown is that of your church's formularies, and of the accredited expositors of these for- mularies, and to the assertion of which, I have farther shown, you yourself stand fully com- mitted. You adopt and maintain the opinion that in baptism " the grace claimed, expected, solicited, has been bestowed." In trying to maintain this position, you fall into the fol- lowing gross errors. In the first place, you represent it as the right and duty of the church to assume and believe that all who profess the faith are true Christians. Even were it the fact that the baptismal congregation were in every case truly regenerate, yet it would not therefore follow as an infallible consequence, that grace must be conferred on the child pre- sented at the font. It is true that God does always answer the prayer of faith, yet not al- ivays at the time in which the blessing is sought, nor always in the way in which it is expected. Leaving out of view, however, at present, this consideration, I observe that you are altoge- ther wrong in supposing that the church is warranted to believe that all who are outwardly in communion with her are born of God. Most unquestionably, she has no right to believe any such thing. The Bible teaches that the church visible is composed of two classes, genuine dis- * Page 301. BAPTISM.— BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 245 ciples and hypocritical professors. When then the Church of England takes it on her to as- sume, and not only to assiuni', but as you teach also, actually to beliece, that the members of this mixed society are really the children of God; and when on such a principle she pro- ceeds to administer religious ordinances, who does not see that she is chargeable with the grossest presumption, and runs directly coun- ter to the testimony of God in his word ? Again, in upholding the theory for which you contend, you take for granted that God is bound to confer his grace on all to whom the ordinance of baptism is administered. For this, I maintain, you have not the slightest warrant from Scripture. Its uniform testi- mony is, that while God may, and often does impart his grace in connexion with this rite, yet he does not invariably do so. The sign is not always accompanied with the thing signi- fied. Sovereign in grace as in providence, be reserves to himself the right of giving it to whomsoever he pleases, (as it is expressed in our Confession, " to such, whether of age or infants, as that grace belongeth unto, accord- ing to the counsel of his own will.") — And surely yon must see that fact teaches you this as well as Scripture. I ask, have you not known many who were baptized by your church in infancy, yet who have lived and died hope- less profligates ? Over these, at the font, your church required her ministers to assert " that they were regenerate," — obliged them to give thanks to God, that " it had pleased him tore- generate them by his Holy Spirit." That is, she required them to assert an absolute false- hood, and to return thanks to God for a bless- ing which he had not bestowed. Do I praise her' for this ? You, sir, may, but most fer- vently do I declare, " I praise her not." It has often puzzled me not a little to divine, how this doctrine of your church respecting baptism can be made to consist with some other important doctrines of evangelical Christianity, for example, with that of the perseverance of the saints. This is a doctrine clearly revealed in the word of God, and faithfully exhibited in the standards ofthe Church of Scotland. Does your church hold it? She holds, I know, the doctrine of predestination, and it has always appeared to me, that with that truth the final perseverance ofthe saints is linked by a bond of indissoluble connexion. But if you tell me that the Church of England docs unite with the other orthodox reformed churches in bear- ing testimony to this latter truth, then I ask, is she not shut up to the belief of the final sal- vation of all who have received baptism at her hands? If in thai ordinance, an electing God have given to infants grace, must not that grace eventually "bring to them salvation"? If, when that sacrament is administered to them, they are born from above, and if (as it is declared in Scripture] there is joy among the angels at every snob Brent, then unless all the baptized are brought to glory, the songs ofthe angelic host must be exchanged for lamenta- tion and mourning and woe. And again, if it be true that in whomsoeverGod"begins agood work, he will perform or finish it," must it not then follow, that all who have been baptized shall infallibly be saved ? Behold, then, sir, the legitimate and unavoidable consequences of your doctrine. There is no possible way by which you can escape these consequences but one, and that is, denying the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. You may tell us that multitudes in your chunch, who have once received true grace in baptism, have afterwards fallen away and been excommunicated — you may phrase this apostacy how you will, either that they have quenched this grace, or for- feited it, or by presumptuous sins rendered it unavailing — all your explanations (and I know that episcopal explanations on this point are manifold,*) will amount simply to this, that you renounce a principal tenet of evangelical truth, and proclaim yourself the abettor of one of the grossest errors of Arminianism. There is still another point of view in which we may contemplate this theory of baptismal regeneration. In upholding it, you not merely assume that God is bound to confer grace on all those who are sprinkled with the waters of baptism, but also, as I have hinted before, that he is bound to confer it at that particular time. You take for granted that the efficacy of the ordinance is tied (to use the expression of the old divines,) to the moment of time in which it is administered. Now this, you ought to know, is an entirely erroneous principle. Those whom God designs to save, he calls into the bonds of the covenant at different periods of life — some when they are baptized, others long after that ordinance has been celebrated — in youth, in maturity, or perhaps in old age. Your view of the matter is totally at variance with this well-known scriptural truth. By affirming the inseparable connection of grace with baptism, you virtually deny that any are ever, in after life, savingly brought to God. You, in fact, in this assumption declare, that it is neither the duty of the adult members of your church to seek regenerating grace, (bishop Mant, you know, has already demonstrated this,) nor your duty as a minister of the New Testament to exhort them to seek it. What saith the Scrip- * The following may be taken as a sample. I quote from a lately published sermon by an episcopalian mi- nister. ••<> brethren, blessed lie God, ibe Church of England always tins taught tills doctrine (baptismal re- gi aeration), and (iod grant she ever may leach it.". . . . " I have taught you that birlh-sin is washed away in baptism, and that the Atari II I Inn sanctified by the Holy Ghost, — so sanctified that all inlants dying alter baptism before theycommit actual sin are undoubteillysaved. Hut wilh regard to us who grow up, baring lost, MBH el us 1 lear, «// "/ this huty nature, and nit of |/.v more or less til ill I have taught >ou thai the man who has lost all his baptismal holiness, requires that change we call eon. vertion, (which is, among Christian*, turning back again to that God whose child he once was, like the prodigal not finding out his father for the first lime, but going back to bun again, i and at for others who have not as grieved tke spirit, they do not n quire conversion, but only wbal is called renrninn. which means an every day get- ting more boh." Bee " A farewell Sermon, " preached in the Parish Church ol Di gees well, Aug. is, iki'.i, by the Kev. Francis Miiidtn knollis, B. A. London: Kiv- I ington & Co., 1839. 246 BAPTISM.— BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. ture ? It represents the word read or heard as the great instrument of regeneration. Paul tells the members of the church that he has " begotten them through the gospel," and Peter uses this language, " being born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, by the word of the Lord. " Now, suppose you were to address your hearers on some particular Sabbath on the nature of the new birth — that you were to dwell on its importance, and en- force on them its necessity, the reflection very naturally arises, with what consistency could you discuss such a subject, or press it on the consideration of your people ? Might they not say to you, " spare yourself, sir, these un- meaning exhortations. They do not apply to us. It is perfectly idle to urge the necessity of a change which has been already accom- plished. Has not the church taught us, and inscribed it for our comfort in the prayer-book, that at our baptism ' God regenerated us with his Holy Spirit' "? And have we forgotteuhow to remove every doubtuponthe point, our venera- ble bishop assured us at our confirmation, that "the everliving God has vouchsafed to regene- rate us with the Holy Ghost, and hath given unto us the remission of all our sins"? Expend not thenyourenergieson ns,butcarry them to those who arelivingwithoutthepale of the apostolical church, and who have never had the waters of baptism poured on them by the hands of the episcopally ordained. " What you, sir, or any minister of the English church, could respond to such an expostulation as this, I am utterly at a loss to conceive. I think I have now succeeded in showing, by these simple illustrations, that the doctrine held by your church respecting baptism is a monstrous error. It is an error essentially popish — the offspring and the relic of that ex- ploded figment of superstition, that sacraments confer grace ex opere operato. When we hear the Church of England declaring that " it is certain that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved " — when we behold her maintaining on the other hand, by refusing to read the burial service over children dying unbaptized, that they are as certainly lost — still farther, when (as in recent instances she has done,) we see her denying Christian interment to children which, though baptized, have not received the ordinance within the pale of her own com- munion, or from the hands of her own minis- ters, must we not feel that in all this she pre- sents a view of the initiatory rite of our re- ligion as kindred to that of the Church of Rome, as it is alien from that of the word of God ? What a mysterious " superstitious value" does she seem thus to attach to this simple and ex- pressive ordinance of the New Testament ! How different her sentiments from those of Paul: "For Christ sent me, " says he, "not to baptize, hutto preach the gospel. " He here ex- pressly asserts the superiority of the preached word over baptism as a mean of grace. Does it not seem that your church directly reverses the apostle's declaration? In a word, can it be denied that her whole teaching and prac- tice in reference to this sacrament affords ground for the sarcastic saying, that " mem- bers of the Church of England should desire to see their offspring baptized as soon as they are born, and dead the moment they are baptized?" I cannot pass from this subject without tak- ing some notice of your extraordinary assertion, that the baptismal errors of your church are sanctioned by the Church of Scotland. I must say that it required no ordinary share of ef- frontery to induce any man, at this time of day, to hazard such an assertion before an en- lightened community. You aver that " the two Confessions are harmonious on the sub- ject," that in assailing the Church of England on this point, I am " condemning the solemnly recorded opinions of my own." And how do you attempt to prove this ? Why, by quot- ing a sentence from — what ? Our present Con- fession of Faith? Not at all, but from the old Confession of 1560 ! This, sir, is a favourite trick of yours. I have found you at it before. 'J his time, indeed, you have the grace to insert at the foot of the page the figures 1560, but still you hoped, doubtless, that the reader might not glance his eye below, but would pass on with the impression that the words you quoted were to be found in the present authorised Confession of the Church of Scotland. Now, let me ask you, is not this a very discreditable mode of conducting a controversy ? What would you think of me were I to quote from the unrevised common-prayer book of the reign of Edward VI, and saddle your church now with every objectionable statement which I might find therein ? I do not in this, by any means, concede that the passage you have ex- tracted from the old Confession at all sanctions your view ; though inaccurately worded, I be- lieve it perfectly susceptible of an interpreta- tion consistent with our acknowledged stan- dards, and such as the well-known opinions of its framers demand that it should receive; still, were it not so, I have a right to protest against you bringing forward such a testimony, when you had in your hands that authorised exposi- tion of our church's doctrine by which she now abides, and to which, in all cases, she now ap- peals. That you had our accredited formu- laries before you, when you had recourse to this paltry device, is quite evident. For, you quote from the Larger Catechism, which is usually bound up with the Confession of Faith. And you assert that in that language of the Catechism, in which baptism is declared to bo " a sign and seal of ingrafting into Christ, of remission of sins by his blood, and regeneration by his Spirit," the Church of Scotland holds and teaches the error of baptismal regenera- tion ! Why, sir, what do you mean ? Can you not comprehend the simplest statement of doctrine ? Cannot baptism be a sign without being also the thing signified ? Can it not be a seal, to confirm and assure spiritual benefits, without confirming and assuring them to all ? Must you not see that, while our church, in the language above quoted from the Catechism, BAPTISM.— SPONSORS. 247 makes baptism to be more than a " bare and naked sign," sbe cannot, -with any shadow of trutb, be charged with propounding the heresy, that the outward rite and the inward grace are universally and inseparably conjoined? But if you had any doubt on your mind as to her real meaning on this subject, why did you not turn back a few pages and examine her sentiments, as still more fully and expli- citly embodied in the 28th chapter of the Con- fession? Could you not find the passage? Or did you think it would not be sufficiently satisfactory to the public? At all events, it would have been but fair to have given it; let me now therefore quote it for your and their edification. " Although it be a great sin to con- temn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and Miration are not so inseparably annexed to it as .... that all u'ho are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated." " The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is ad- ministered, yet notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and con- ferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace bclongcth unto, ac- cording to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time." Such, sir, is the confession of the Church of Scotland respecting baptism. And yet you deliberately assert that it is "per- fectly harmonious with that of the Church of England," — that in assailing the errors of the latter church on this point, I am condemning the solemnly recorded opinions of my own ! I think, sir, that you ought to beg pardon of the Church of Scotland. I come now to examine your defence of your church's sponsorial institutions. Your views on this subject, you cannot but be aware, were looked for with considerable anxiety by the public. The members of your own church, who have never been able very clearly to ap- prehend the reasonableness of this practice, expected to see it now at length established on an immovable scriptural basis; while the prcsbyterian community were curious to know how the arguments which have been so often brought against this system, and which have hitherto appeared to them irresistible, could lie fairly met ami satisfactorily rebutted. And now, let it be asked, how have you discussed this important question ? Oh, sir, what a mi- serable exhibition have you made of yourself before an expectant public ! Could it have been anticipated, or can it be believed, that not a single argument have you advanced In de fence of your system of sponsors— that not a sin- gle plea from revelation, from reason, or from antiquity, have you urged in its behalf — that not a single effort have ymi made to controvert the reasoning by which I exposed its absurdity ? Instead of doing this, instead of manfully con- tending for it as a truth, or candidly admitting it to bo an error, you try to shelter it under the authority of churches and of individuals ! Your whole vindication of it consists in an at- tempt to show that it is sanctioned by the prac- tice of the churches of Scotland and France, and has not been objected to by the " presby- terian Beza." We shall see by and by whe- ther this be so ; but in the meantime, how un- worthy is it of a protestant divine to resort to this mode of conducting a controversy. To give an opponent authorities in place of argu- ments, to refer him to earthly teachers instead of the " teacher sent from God " ! What care I for the example of any church, however pure, or the opinion of any man, however learned, if it be not in accordance with the Bible ? I appeal " to the law and to the testimony." The prcsbyterian church, in her formularies and in her practice, recognises the scriptural principle, that children are to be received to baptism, in right of the professed faith of the parents. She holds it to be, at the same time, perfectly lawful, that in cases of absolute ne- cessity, other suitable persons may be admit- ted in the parents' stead, to make a public profession of the faith, and promise for the Christian education of the infant about to be baptized. And it was on this principle, it would appear, that sponsors were first intro- duced in the primitive church. There is no mention made of them by the early fathers. But in the fourth century, we find the follow- ing reference to them by Augustine : " Some- times, when parents are dead, the infants are baptized, being offered by those who could show such compassion to them. And some- times infants, whom their parents have cruelly exposed, are taken up by holy virgins, and of- fered to baptism by them who have no chil- dren of their own. "* On this language, Dr. Wall,-)- an eminent episcopalian, makes the following remarkable comment : — " Here we see the ordinary use then was, for parents to answer for the children; but yet that it was not counted so necessary, as that a child could not be baptized without it. " While such was the ancient practice, and such the rational ground, on which sponsors were at first intro- duced, what, let us ask, is the doctrine of your church on the subject? We find it announced in the 29th Canon, in these words: — "No parent shall be urged to be present at his child's baptism, or be admitted to answer as godfather for his own child. " Now, sir, whilst this canon is sounding in our ears, will you permit me to put to you the following simple questions, to which I am exceedingly desirous to obtain a satisfactory answer ? Bo you not believe that the Bible represents children as being entitled to baptism, on the ground of the parents' profession of the faith? If so, on what principle will you justify your church in receiving them to this Christian ordinance on their own faith and their own promise, uttered by their sureties ? Is not this unscriptural? Is it not wrong? — Again, do you not believe it to be the teaching of the word of Ood, that those "ho till the parental office incur an aw- ful responsibility, ought to acknowledge that » Fpist. xxiii. + Hist. Inf. Bapt., vol. i.p- 190. 248 BAPTISM.— SPONSORS. responsibility before the church, and are un- der obligations from which nothing can release them, to train up then- offspring in the " nur- ture and admonition of the Lord?" Why, then, I would ask you, does the Church of England prevent parents, at the baptism of their children, from acknowledging this re- sponsibility, and taking on them these obli- gations ? You say, that " she presumes the ties of natural affection will secure their so- licitude. " But what right has she to presume any such thing ? Are men usually disposed by their " natural " feelings to do their duty ? If this were the case, why so many earnest admonitions addressed to parents by the apos- tles r According to your principle, these were needless — " the ties of natural affection would secure their solicitude." Must you not see that this will never justify your church in set- ting aside the parents in this ordinance, thus depriving them of a most powerful stimulus to d«ty, and encouraging them in the neglect of parental obligations ? I have one other ques- tion to ask you here. Do you not believe that parents are the fittest persons to be entrusted with the moral guardianship of their own chil- dren ? Have not they the deepest interest in them ? Do not they possess the greatest fa- cilities for superintending and promoting their Christian education? Is it reasonable that the church should, by an express law, not only not permit them to make the required sponsion in baptism, but not even request them to be present at the celebration of the ordinance ; thus leaving them out of view as if they had no concern whatever in the matter, and consign- ing the care and culture of their children into the hands of comparative strangers. This, it has been well said, is just as if, when a debtor himself is able and willing to pay, we refuse his bond and insist upon having that of an- other person, perhaps of a bankrupt, in his stead. Is this, I would again put it to you, a rational procedure in your church ? Is her conduct, in this matter, justifiable on any principle of Scripture or of common sense? Hitherto we have been arguing on the sup- position that engagements are entered into, and promises made, by the parties who appear as sponsors in the Church of England. But if we examine narrowly into her view of the matter, as embodied in her ritual, and inter- preted by her practice, it would appear that there is in reality no sponsion made by these persons at all. For let it be observed, it is to the child, in your church's administration of the ordinance, that the questions are put, and from it that the answers are demanded. Thus, in the office for public baptism, the priest is directed thus to address the godfather and godmother; " Therefore this infant must also faithfully for his part promise by you that are his sureties, until he come of age to take it on himself, that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his command- ments. I demand, therefore, ' Dost thou be- lieve in God, the Father Almighty' ? (reciting the Apostle's creed.) Ans. ' All this T stead- fastly believe.' Minister: 'Wilt thou be bap- tized in this faith ? ' Ans. ' So is my desire.' Minister : ' Wilt thou obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life ?' Ans. ' I will.' " It is manifest in all this, that it is the child that is interrogated, and from the child that stipulations are required. The question is put, wilt thou be baptized ? and the response given, I will. No person can imagine that this refers to the godfathers and godmothers, for they have been baptized long ago. It is the help- less infant that is here questioned by the min- ister, and supposed to make profession before the church. Let us see now the mass of errors and inconsistencies in which this practice of your church, which you term " an allowable arrangement," involves her. Let us view it as it exhibits your church's testimony in reference to the administration of baptism, as it affects the sponsors presenting the child, and the bystanders looking on. First, in what light does it represent the Church of England as viewing this sacrament of the New Testament ? The only proper scriptural foun- dation on which infant baptism can rest is, un- questionably, that of federal holiness. The Church of England arbitrarily removes it from this sure basis, and administers it on the ground of personal holiness, thus going (as I have already shown) directly " contrary to God's word written." Again, an important object of baptism is, that security may be af- forded to the church for the Christian educa- tion of children. What security does your church, in her sponsorial arrangements, de- mand, — what stipulations does she require from godfathers and godmothers ? None what- ever. Farther, your church positively, and without any manner of doubt, asserts that the child baptized does believe. You make it say, by a fiction, " I do believe." Now supposing it were capable of exercising faith at the time, how do you know that it is disposed to exer- cise it ? If it be able to believe, is it not also able to disbelieve ? What right have you to assume, that it will do the one more than the other. Once more — by insisting on an actual profession of faith from the child, before it be admitted to this Christian rite, your church vir- tually betrays the cause of infant baptism al- together. She cannot, in upholding her spon- sorial views, defend the practice against the anabaptists. They maintain that none may be baptized, unless they make a profession of the faith, and when she refuses baptism to infants, unless " they promise repentance and faith by their sureties," she, to all intents and purposes, recognises their principles, and can- not, with any shadow of consistency, contend against them. * * The following sentence occurs among some just ob. servations made by the learned Daille on this absurd " arrangement," of the English Church. "Auinfantis presented to the minister to be baptized ; the minister, as though he thought it unlawful to baptize even an infant except he believes, demands,— and which aygra- BAPTISM.— SPONSORS. 249 Such is the erroneous view which your church's sponsorial system gives of the rite of baptism. Observe, now, how it must aflfect the godfathers and godmothers. They cannot hut feel, as they stand at the font, that they appear in the parents' place, and as unauthor- ised intruders on the parents' office. They hear certain solemn inquiries put to the help- less babe before them, which, with a full con- sciousness of the justridicule it entails on them, they answer in its stead. They declare before God that it believes the apostles' creed, and will renounce the devil and all his works, while they know perfectly that it cannot do the one, and may never do the other. They hear themselves exhorted and adjured at the close of the service to watch over the future spiritual welfare of the child, while they feel that it is physically impossible they can perform the duties which are required. I ask you, sir, what effect this system is calculated to have on the minds of the sponsors, not merely of the ignorant and careless, but of the enlightened and the consci- entious ? Will it inflict no moral injury on them to take part in such a ceremonial ? Must not the thought that they have solemnly affirm- ed that before God, which they do know or be- lieve to be true, greatly distress their minds, an I tend to wound their consciences and harden their hearts? Must not the reflection that they have allowed themselves to incur obligations, which they do not intend (and which even, were they disposed, they are literally unable) to fulfil, blunt their moral sense, and encourage them to neglect and despise the most sacred sanctions of religion ? Are not such consequences as these to be feared — are they not inevitable ? I have now to request you to think of the effect of this system on the minds of spectators. Suppose a number of careless or perhaps scof- fing worldlings contemplating this rite, as admi- nistered accordingto the laws and canonsofyour church. They behold at the font the sleeping, unconscious babe. Presently they hear the minister gravely asking, "Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth," &c. ! While considering with them- selves to whom this question can possibly be addressed, they hear a number of individuals ex- claiming," all this /steadfastly believe." Again the minister inquires, "Wilt thou be baptized in this faith"? And again the same individuals respond — "/will." What a scene is this! A slumbering or moaning infant is examined re- specting some of the profoundest points of theological opinion, and its assent demanded to the performance of one of the most solemn acts of religious homage, and certain persons, called by the heathenish names godfathers and godmothers, stand by and exclaim, — / believe, I will! — And who are these godfathers and rules the absurdilu, he demands of the infunl himself whether he believe*, tacitly Implying he may not bap- tize him unless he Hues so." He then Roe* on tn show at length, that this ridiculous custom was the device of the fourth century, transferred Iron) the baptism ol' ailulls to that ol inianW, through a perverse imitation of antiquity. De Cult. Lat. Relig. p 01. godmothers ? Are they uniformly grave, pious characters, whose very deportment is a guaran- tee for the fulfilment of their obligations ? Very often they are directly the reverse. How frequently is it to the young, the gay, and the thoughtless, that this office is assigned in the Church of England ! How commonly are in- dividuals selected to fill it from motives of friendship, or fashion, or self-interest, or con- venience, rather than from any deep-felt con- viction that they will most faithfully perform the duties which it entails ! * And how gene- rally is it found that they who appear in this character at the font, view the whole matter with indifference or withlevity — go to the church to take part in what they regard as one of the decent conventionalisms of society, and leave it without having the most distant idea that they have there incurred any responsibility, or stand in any new relation to a child which they have perhaps never seen before, and may never see again ! Who does not know that this is the light in which multitudes regard your of- fice of sponsors ! Nay, who has not heard even of your sponsorial proxies — of the godfather in England, for instance, delegating his authority to his representative in Ireland, commission- ing, as it were, his spiritual attorney to make an appearance for him in the courts of the church, and to proclaim there that a certain child, which neither the one nor the other has ever seen, does that which, both the one and the other are perfectly aware it is utterly in- capable of doing ! Such is baptism in the Church of England. Parents are set aside, and substitutes unknown to and unsanctioned by the Bible are thrust into their office. I ap- peal to you once again, sir, what is the effect which such an " arrangement " is calculated to have on worldly and irreligious men? Does not your church, in thus outraging the dictates of Scripture and common sense, cast a stum- bling-block in their way, and tempt them to regard as little else than a solemn farce one of the most affecting and impressive of the insti- tutions of the Saviour ? Let me examine now the defence you have set up in this matter for the Church of Eng- land. You again resort to the expedient you have so often tried, that is, to obtain shelter for her under the sanction of a pure and scrip- tural establishment. But it will not do. The Scottish Zion disowns your errors, and will give you no countenance whatever in your malpractices. In attempting to show that she » It would seem that ministers of the Church of England have no power to prevent persons from act- ing as sponsors whom they know to be notoriously most unlit lor the office According to the Canons none can be refused, if they have on'y " received the holy com- munion" But when it la reflected, that owing to the acknowledged •• entire disuse of dUetpliiu " now In the Eatabliahmenl (see Assays on the Church p.SM), the most profligate persons may be, and often are, admitted to the sacrament, it will be seen that this limitation is of slight avail. And in point ol fuel, even this limitation is altogether disregarded in practice, as it is well known that buys and girls often stand godfathers and godmo- thers, though they bave never received the Lord'* supper at all. 2G 250 BAPTISM.— SPONSORS. differs scarcely anything from the Church of England on the subject of sponsors, you allow yourself to be betrayed into a most extraordi- nary recklessness of assertion. You say that "the two churches agree thoroughly as to the lawfulness of the office." Now, surely you must know that the Church of Scotland holds not and never held the office to be lawful in the light in which your church regards it. She ad- mits of sponsion, it is true, but not, be it obser- ved, the sponsion of the Church of England. She requires the parents, and in cases of neces- sity, others then the parents, to appear as spon- sors —for whom ? not for the child, but for themselves — not that the poor speechless infant believes and will obey, but that they themselves profess the faith and will fulfil their duties. Here is the grand distinction, and yet knowing this, you disingenuously affirm that she agrees with your church thoroughly as to the lawful- ness of the sponsorial office. But you go farther and assert that " she scarcely disagrees with the Church of England as to the persons who are to fill it." For you say in a note, "the Church of Scotland re- quires parents but allows strangers." And again, you say, " she wishes parents to under- take the office." Is this true? Does she merely wish parents to appear as the sponsors ? Did you not know, at the moment you penned this, that she has declared it to be their solemn and bounden duty, on all occasions, to appear as such, and will never dispense with them un- less in cases of absolute necessity ? And when you wrote these words, " she allows strangers," evidently intending to suggest the idea that she does not look upon the differ- ence as one of much moment, were you not aware that she has recorded her deliberate conviction, that on no account should strangers ever be permitted to fill this office, except when necessity imperatively requires it, as, for exam- ple, when the parents are dead, or of so grossly ignorant or immoral character as to be inca- pable of transacting a solemn covenant before God? But you have gone farther than all this. For you actually affirm that the Church of England does not exclude parents from the of- fice I You say, " she requires strangers but allows parents."-" Allows parents! Why, sir, what do you mean ? Is there no 29th Canon ? Do you not hear it at this moment thundering in your ears, " no parent shall be urged to be present at his child's baptism, or be admitted to answer as godfather for his oivn child ? " * * Since the appearance of the first edition of the " Plea," Mr. Boyd, in a pamphlet published since, has tried to vindicate his strange assertion, that the Church of England permits parents to act as sponsors. He is confronted with the canons, but these he regards as a mere nose of wax. He tells us that they are of no abso- lute authority whatever, but " ouly general regulations, no farther binding on the clergy than when the Dioce- san chooses to enforce them." I shall here briefly reca- pitulate some of the evidence by which I showed (in Mene Tekel) that this is an utter misrepresentation on his part. The following are the opinions of two judges of the highest eminence : Wore ». More 2, Atkins Reps. 158— Lord Hardwicke says, speaking of the canons of 1603, regulating marria- And yet you unblushingly declare, " the Church of England allows parents"! Oh! Mr. Boyd! It is needless to pursue this farther. Every one who compares the standards of the Church of Scotland with the laws and canons of the Church of England will at once discover, that instead of the two churches " thoroughly agree- ing as to the office, and scarcely disagreeing as to the person " — they are, with regard to the whole system of sponsors, " wide as the poles asunder." Your next plea for your sponsorial institu- tions is that Beza " saw no objection to them." I shall have an opportunity, by and by, of showing more at length, what dependence is to be placed on your references to this learned reformer. At present, I have only to give a flat contradiction to your assertion that he was favourable to your system of sponsors. I ob- serve that you do not give his words, and I have no doubt that you had excellent reasons for withholding them. But I shall quote from him, for you, the two following sentences, which I entreat you to " mark, learn, and in- wardly digest." In describing the purity of the church of Strasburg as compared with that of England, he says, " in the rites of that church where shall we meet with those odious stipulations of which you boast, or exorcism, ges— ''No ecclesiastical persons can dispense with a canon, for they are obliged to pursue the directions in them with the utmost exactness, and it is in the power ol the Crown only to do it." 2 Atkins 605— Lord Hardwicke cites the opinion of lord Holt, C.J., and declares, "i< is not denied by any one, that it is very plain all the clergy are bound by the ca- nons confirmed by the king only." I now refer to the judgment of an eminent modern ci- vilian which I have been at the paius to procure. " It has been decided in Middleton v. Croft (Stranges Reps., 1056), that the canons of 1603, &c, subsequent to the Statutes of Henry VIII, are not binding on the laity, proprio vigore, because they never were, as the former ancient canons, confirmed by parliament, and the laity were not represented in the enacting convocations " Now the clergy were represented in those late convoca- tions, and the canons were confirmed by the king, as head of the church, and in the preface to 1 Burns' Feci. Law xx., he says, "in this case the point was not in question, whether, or how far, the said canons are obli- gatory on the clergy. It seems generally that they are binding in ttiat respect. And the position is in 1 Bol- lingbroke's Eccl. Law (Irish) v. Thus it seems that all the canons, not only btfore, but after, the 25th Henry VII I, are binding on the clergy in England, and I am not aware that the clergy have heretofore asserted, that the laws of the clergy, touching the ceremonials of the church, are different in the two countries." In Roger's Eccl. Law, (published in 1840), it is stated that " the present bishop of London, in his printed in- structions to his Candidates for Orders, recommends them to study with care the canons of 1603, the spirit of which, and, as far as possible, the letter of them, his lordship adds, 'the clergy are bound to observe in their conduct, as members of the Established Church.'" These high authorities, I should think, will be deem- ed amply sufficient to prove that Mr. Boyd is totally astray in his rash interpretation of Canon law. 'I his, indeed, his own friends have fell themselves constrained publicly to acknowledge. In the " Irish Eccl. Journal," (No. 3. Sept. *9th, 1840), there appears a letter signed "Presbyteius Armachauus," referring to Mr. H.'s state- ment about sponsors. The writer, (evidently a minis- ter of the Church), says — " I desire, with all possible courtesy, to deny the position in which Mr. Boyd com- pares the sponsorial usages of the Church of England and the Scottish Establishment He says, ' the Church of England requires strangers but allows parents.' This, BAPTISM SPONSORS. 251 or the sign of the cross, or chrism t " * Here he designates the stipulations which the com- mon-prayer hook requires to he made at bap- tism as odious, and classes them with exor- cism, chrism, and the sign of the cross. Again, in the judgment which, with some other of the foreign divines, he delivered respecting the li- turgy of the Church of England in 1547, he uses this language : " wherefore even as the cream and charm used in baptism are by God's law abolished, although they were ancient, so wish we also these demandings, being not only vaine but foolish, should be also passed over." He then shows how these spousorial demand- in the face of the 16th Irish, or 29th English Canon, is, no doubt, rattier a startling statement, and I must say, that / cannot acquiesce in Mr. O.'s mode of establishing) it." It is clear from this (we may presume reluctant) ad- mission, that Mr. li 's views on this subject are altoge- ther lalitudinarian and indefensible. He is contradict- ed to his face, not merely by the letter of the canons, or the decisions of chief justices, or the assertion of op- ponents — but by the deliberate testimony of his own brethren. They are too conscientious to sanction such doctrine as this, that men may connive at the breach of laws which they have sworn to obey. With them, and not with me, his controversy lies. — it may surely be ex- pected that he will now, at length, cry peccavi, announce to the public, (whom he so grievously misled on this point in his book), that the canons are stringently bind- ing on all the clergy, and be careful in his future prac- tice, never, on any account, to " allow " a single father or mother '• to be present" at the baptism of their child. And here by the way I am reminded of another slight circumstance which I must not omit to notice. I have beeu somewhat severely taken to task by Mr. B., in his late pamphlet, for having (in quoting the canon respect- ing sponsors in baptism) referred to the rvrong number, and lor having also intentionally misquoted the lan- guage. I ought to have known, he informs me in atone ot lofty reprehension, that it is not the 29ih hut the 16. li, and that it is not " no parent shall be urged to be present at the baptism, &c, but no parent shall he urged topre- sent his child," 4cc. Well— instead of vindicating myself, let me just quote an additional sentence or two from the letter already referred to in the "Irish Feci. Journal," from which it will be seen that the writer there gene- rously undertakes to defend me,himself,from the assaults of his friend Mr. Boyd. He says," 1 may remark en pas- sant, that Mr. B., in his pamphlet, has inadvertently (!) inflicted on his opponent, Mr.Goudy, an undeserved ceit- »ure lor misquoting this canon. It is (as Mr. G. states) the 29th (linglish) Canon, and it dors strangely vary (in the very nag quoted by Mr. G.) from the correspond- ing (Irish) Canon, the 16th. My scanty library pre- vents ray ascertaining the reason, if any, of this va- riance. Tin- Irish Canon is rational and intelligible, "no parent shall lie urijed to present" — the English counterpart, I confess I do not understand " no parent shall be urged to be present," — Neither do I ;— but that is not the point. Reader ! behold in these lew wordsof" Prcsbyterus Annachanus," a notable illustra- tion of the learning of Mr. Boyd '1 hat rev. divine takes it on him to read his opponent a lecture on his ignorance, and expound to hiin the principles of canon law, at the very moment when, it is manifest, he is absolutely un- acquainted with the existence of the English canoni, or that there bad ever been any other than the Irish ! If he had read the English canons, he must have been aware that I was giving thecorrect reference as to num- ber, and the exact rendering as to phraseology — in which case, it is not to be imagined he would have had the reckless dishonesty to charge me with a sin of which he knew I was not guilty. '1 he only conclusion, therefore, is, that he muat have been ignorant at the time. And how ignorant ? A curate — a rector (that is to be) of the Church of England, not to be kware of the existence of the English canons ! We are reminded of the pithy- saying of the old Scotch minister, " // must be admitted that a man should know something of a subject before he writes on it." * Ans. to Baldwin. ings crept into the church, and says, " that tho like are yet in use in the popish baptisme." * This, sir, is Beza's mind on the subject. And yet you tell us that he " saw no objection " to thi3 arrangement of your church. What! when he calls it vain, foolish, odious, popish ? If this be " seeing no objection " to your spon- sorial system, I am quite willing to confess that, in a similar icay, I see no objection to it either. The next and lastf authority to which (in the absence of any argument from reason or Scrip- ture,) you appeal in behalf of your system of sponsors, is, the practice of the French church. You allege "that theFrenchpresbyteri an church has sanctioned it." Even were this true, it would matter exceedingly little. The French church we have never been in the habit of re- garding as either a very consistent or very un- compromising witness for the truth. At various periods of her history, it is well known, she evinced a very reprehensible laxness in respect to several important points, both of doctrine and discipline. On the subject in dispute, for instance, I am quite willing to admit she held somewhat latitudinarian views. Still, she will not give your church " the benefit of her testi- mony " in the present trial. She will not sanc- tion your sponsorial system. Let me call your attention, in proof of this, to the following ex- tract from one of her canons : " Forasmuch as ire have no commandment from the Lord to take godfathers or godmothers who may present our children unto baptism, there cannot be any par- ticular canon made which shall bind persons to do it." * Here it is acknowledged that there is not the shadow of scriptural warrant for the practice, and that it would be utterly unlawful to frame any enactment to bind it on men's • Epist. Bez. xii. p. 100, Geneva, 1575. + It should perhaps be observed here in passing, that Mr. Bovd, in a note to his first letter, has repre- sented Dr. Cooke as finding nothing to object to in the sponsorial principles of the Church of England. Unfortunately, however, he has Dot given any au- thority for thi.i statement better than his own un- supported assertion. — In the same note, moreover, he has challenged Mr. M'Uura to " lay his finger on a single sentence of the Church Catechism to which he would not himself subscribe." I miiy state that I had prepared a list of some of the principal errors in this Catechism, which, for want of space, owing to the length to which this letter has already exten- ded, I am reluctantly compelled to omit. As a single sample of them, however, I would just quote the following sentence : " 1 believe in God the Son, u/io hath redeemed me and all mankind." Here we have an explicit denial of the doctrine of particular re- demption, a doctrine of vast importance, and which is cleariy taught in the word of God, and in the standards of the presby terlan church. It is remark, able that in the very next sentence of theCaechlsm sanctiflcation is confined to the elect— " who sanc- tifieth me and nil the elect people of God." Thm the church exhibits herself as not only erroneous, but self-contradictory iu her testimony. In one piece declaring that redemption is universal, in another, that sanctlficatlon is limited— In a word, opposing the catholic opinion that the work of the Spirit is co-extensive with the work of the Son. This is but one of the errors of the Catechism. There are various other statements in it to which I am anils- fied no consistent orthodox pre.bylerlan could or would " subscribe." t Quick's Synodicon.chap. xi. can. /• !52 BAPTISM.— SIGN OF THE CROSS. consciences. But the Church of England, you know, has taken it on her 10 legislate on this subject, and has peremptorily forbidden her ministers ever to permit a Christian parent to appear and answer as sponsor for his own child. Itis manifest, therefore, that the French church, so far from approving, distinctly condemns in this matter the intolerable presumption of the English. I come now to consider your attempted vin- dication of signing with the cross in baptism. You are uncommonly angry with me for using strong language in condemning this usage, particularly for designating it a " superstitious rite," and for classing it with the salt, the spit- tle, and the chrism of Rome. I would wish to justify my phraseology, and I shall do so by showing you that it is sanctioned by the prac- tice of many most eminent and judicious writ- ers, both prelatical and presbyterian. Thus, in the year 1562, when a great number of the most learned bishops of the English church intreated the convocation to abolish the sign of the cross, with other obnoxious rites ordained by the Act of Uniformity — the language they used respecting it was, that " it tended to su- perstition." Why do you not rate these bi- shops of your church for their uncivil language ? Why do you not rail at them in " good set terms," as you have railed at me ? Why do you not say to them — " Most reverend fathers, I could not equal you in vituperation, nor can I condescend 10 attempt it" ? The principal reason which you advance for retaining the use of the sign of the cross is, that it is very ancient. You inform us that " it is a custom which was practised and reve- red by all the churches of antiquity." I an- swer that there are many other customs exceed- ingly ancient which have no warrant whatever from the word of God. The worshipping of angels obtained in the apostolic age. Prayers and oblations for the dead were offered up in the age immediately succeeding. The primi- tive Christians practised thrice dipping in bap- tism, administered a mixture of milk and honey to the baptized, and required abstinence from the bath for a week after the ordinance was celebrated. These are all very ancient rites — most venerable superstitions. Why do you not insist on retaining them ? They were " practised and revered by all the churches of antiquity." But I have now to acquaint you that you are entirely astray in supposing the sign of the cross, as you employ it, to have been in use in primitive times. You have not even this poor excuse for it. I distinctly deny that it was thus used in baptism during thejirst three centuries. I do so on the authority of the learned Daille.* It has been abundantly shown by him and other writers versant in patristic lore, that the most ancient use of the sign of the cross was entirely and grossly superstitious, not confined to baptism or any other religious rite, but ap- plied to almost all the common actions of life. * De Cultib. Lat. This bishop Burnet himself acknowledges : he says, " we find the primitive Christians used the making a cross in the air or upon their own bodies on many occasions. Afterwards when a divine virtue was fancied to accompany that ritual action, it was used in baptism as a sort of incantation, for with the use of it the devil was adjured to go out of the person about to be baptized. Such an usage made it a sacra- mental, superstitious action."* Bishop Crofts also makes a similar admission. " The super- stition," says he, " of the cross, and chrism, were in use in the second century .f Let me quote for you, in confirmation of this, the tes- timony of two of the fathers respecting it. Tertullian says: " At every passage, at every going forward, at every coming in and going out, at putting on our clothes and our shoes, at the bath, at going to table, at lighting can- dles, at going to bed — we stamp our forehead with the sign of the cross." + Lactantius says : " Nor can the devils approach them on whom they see this heavenly mark, nor can they hurt those whom this heavenly sign as an impreg- nable fortress defends." § Such, sir, was the primitive use of this sign. Thus was it " prac- tised by the churches of antiquity." As you are such an ardent admirer of them, and have adopted this usage out of reverence for their authority, why, may I ask, have you not " fol- lowed them fully " ? Why do you limit your use of this hallowed sign to baptism ? Why do you not mark your forehead with it at every coming in and going out, when you put on your clothes, and put on your shoes, and seat your- self at table, and light your candles, and go to your bed ? You say that " the primitive Chris- tians in times of fiery trial found it to be unto edification." No doubt they did — and if you will be but persuaded to use it after their fashion, you will probably be as much edified by it as they were. Truly it would be an edi- fying spectacle to see you in this matter exactly conforming yourself to their practice ! — No sir, your professed reverence for antiquity is false and hollow. The fathers, could they look down upon you, would regard you as a degenerate son. By restricting the sign of the cross to baptism, they would tell you, you have poured contempt on that sacred badge, and openly stigmatized both their principlesand theirprac- tice. Never till you introduce the system of crossing not merely then, but on all occasions, like the devouter papists, will you be able to reinstate yourself in their favour and vindicate your claim to be enrolled among the number of their genuine descendants. It is an unquestionable truth that the use of the sign of the cross in baptism was unknown till about the fourth century, when the church had lapsed into innumerable errors and super- stitions. I challenge you to gainsay or dis- * Four Discourses ti the Clergy. + Naked Truth, p. 10. t"Adomneui progressum atque promotuni. ad omnem adilum et exilum, ad vestitum et calciatum, ad l.ivatra, ad meosas, ad lumina, ad cubila— fron- tem crucis signaculo terimus." De Cor. i lustit. lib. 4. BAPTISM.-SIGN OF THE CROSS. 253 prove this fact. But waiving this, I have a still graver charge against your church's adop- tion of this rite than its being a comparatively recent invention. I charged her before, and I charge her still, with imparting to it asacra- menial character. You express the utmost astonishment that Icouldbringmyselftoprefer this accusation. You should know that it is not new. You must be extremely ignorant of what has been written on our side of the controversy , if you require to be told, that it has been repeat- edly and unanswerably urged by divines of the greatest learning and piety ; such men, for example, as Calvin, Bullinger, Willet, and Chemnitius, and in later times the pious Rich- ard Baxter, have " perilled their character "by making it You say that your church does not represent it as of divine appointment, and consequently that my charge against her cannot be substan- tiated. I know that your church does not make a divine sacrament out of it, nor did I ever say that she does. All I maintained was, that by at- tributing to it certain sacramental qualities she " has made it as much a sacrament as any thing set up by mere human authority can be." This is the very language I employed. You say " she could not well fashion a sacra- ment out of it." I shall now show that at all events she has done what she could. I observe in the first place that she has made it an instruct ire representing sign of the bene- fits of the New Covenant. It is called by the Convocation, in the Latin edition of the canons, (which archbishop Wake says is more authen- tic than the English,) " a pledge and sign of the merits of Christ." * Again the 30th Canon says, " The Holy Ghost did honour the name of the cross so far, that under it he compre- hended not only Christ crucified, but the force, effect, and merit of his death and passion, with all the comforts, fruits, and promises, we re ceive or expect thereby." It appears from this language, that your church regards the sign of the cross as a pledge of the merits of Christ — a fit external symbol of those things which God " honoured the name of the cross to signify." That this is her view of it I shall prove by quoting the words of two of her divines — one of them at least, a man of leaguing. Hooker calls it " That holy sign which bringeth forth- with to mind whatsoever Christ hath wrought and ire vowed against sin." f And the Rev. Archibald Boyd goes still farther and says, that it "contains under it tin- elements of a doctrine, and reminds tin- Christ inn that In- stands within the circle of the corenant. " Nay, he absolutely compares its " magic power" to recal truth to the remembrance, to that exercised by " the simple deed of breaking bread at the com- munion table of the Lord" ! J Now, after Ian guage like this, (language, I must say, most disgraceful to protectant ministers,) am I not warranted in affirming that the Church of England regards and has set up the sign of the cross as a teaching, representing symbol * Tessera rt sicrnum merilorum Cliristi. t Ercles. Pol. lib. 5, sect. 65. j See Sermons on the Chuich, pp. 1C8, 169. and in so far imparts to it a sacramental cha- racter ? But she goes much farther than this. She invests this sign with other qualities and attri- butes still more distinctive of a sacrament. A main element in the definition of a sacrament is, that it is " an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace. " Now, your church makes the crossing on the child's fore- head the outward sign, and she connects with this an inward grace. And what is that grace ? Why, christian fortitude — ability to contend against and overcome spiritual foes. For it is said in the 30th Canon, that the individual is signed " in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified, and manfully fight under his ban- ner. " Here, unquestionably, it is exhibited as a sign, or token, or pledge of grace, to be wrought in us by the power of God, operating morally through its instrumentality. I am not, sir, wronging your church in ascribing to the canon this meaning, for her accredited teachers and expositors have thus interpreted it. What is the language of Hammond on this subject? — " He that thus signed, " says he, " to Con- stantine victory from heaven, will thus give grace and seal to us victory over our ghostly enemies. " * Can any thing be stronger or more decisive than this ? This eminent episcopalian divine declares positively that God will thus (that is, by the. use of this sign) give grace. To the same effect Hooker de- clares that " by it, Christian men never want a most effectual though silent teacher. " And what do you say yourself? You say, that " by the impress of the symbol of redemption on the forehead, the Christian is reminded that he is placed iu a new and privileged position. " Ajid again, that " to this ceremony there are linked impressive and momentous truths—that with the thought of it there would come over the mind touching associations and solemn recol- lections, (hat would stablish the heart, in a mo- meni of doubt or timidity, "f What, let me ask you, is the meaning of this? Can it be denied, that your church teaches — that you yourself, in these expressions I have quoted, represent her as teaching, that grace is con- nected with the use of the sign of the cross ? And what is this but making it a sacrament, regarding it as the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace? But there is slill one other feature of a sac- rament which she assigns to this rite. She makes it a rite of dedication. She declares J that "thereby the infant is dedicated to the ser- vice of liiiu that died upon the cross." No language can be plainer or stronger than this. Here then we see the sign of the cross is in- stituted for an end which the sacraments of the New Testament alone were appointed to serve, namely, to bind us to the duties of God's cove- nant. ' You try to explain this away ;— and let * Works, vol. ii. I give this quotation on the au- thority ot Pierce. + Sermons on the Church, p. 169. t Thirtieth Canon. 254 BAPTISM.— SIGN OF THE CROSS. me remind you that this is the only part of my whole argument against the sign of the cross which you- attempt to answer. And what is the answer which you have given? First you have recourse to the old popish distinction be- tween the flock of Christ and his militia or soldiers. This is a distinction unsanctioned by the word of God, and therefore we utterly reject it. We regard the flock of Christ and the militia of Christ as one and the same ; the act consequently that enrols us into the one must enrol us into the other, the rite that dedi- cates us to his service as soldiers of his cross, must also dedicate us to his service as mem- bers of his flock. But you say that the sign of the cross dedi- cates only declarative ly. It only announces and publishes, as it were, what has already taken place in baptism. Now, I can only say that no one would have discovered this but for your explanation. The language used, when the child is signed, does just as strongly ex- press dedication as that employed when it is baptized. The canon says, " it is a lawful out- ward ceremonial, whereby the infant is dedi- cated to the service of him that died upon the cross." Do you mean to tell us that this sig- nifies, that by the use of this sign the child is not really dedicated at all, but merely declared to have been dedicated by another lawful cere- mony which took place before ? This would be indeed a strange interpretation to put on the plain and obvious wording of the canon. Farther, I am yet to leam that a declarative dedication may not also be a real one. You seem to think that the two are quite incom- patible. You say that the dedication made by the sign of the cross is only the " token of a former one " — only " visibly announces what another (baptism) has already done." And you delude yourself with the idea that there is no harm at all in this — nothing sacramental in such an act. Now, will you just answer me one question, ivhat is the Lord's supper f Is it not a "token or indication" of a former dedicatory rite ? Is it not an announcement before the church of what has already taken place? Is it not a declarative dedication, and also an actual and real one ? And why may we not suppose the sign of the cross to be the same ? Why may we not conclude, when it is said, " the infant is thereby dedicated to the service of Christ," that there is a solemn re- newal, in this ceremony, of that dedication which first took place in baptism ? And is not this sacramental? Is not this making it re- semble the ordinance of the Lord's supper ? You will thus perceive that your attempt to show that the sign of the cross is not made a rite of dedication in your church is an utter failure. I have exposed your sophistry, and made it clear that she has appointed it for this end, and consequently is guilty of ascribing to it a third important characteristic of a sacra- ment —namely, that of binding Christians to the discharge of covenant duties. I may notice one other quality of a sacra- mental kind, with which your church has in- vested this ceremony of the cross. It is partly implied in what has been already stated, but it may be well to specify it more distinctly. She makes it a distinguishing symbol — a mark of Christian profession. The canon describes it as " a lawful and honourable badge." That is, when the individual is crossed on the forehead by the priest, he is then and thereby separated from Christ's enemies and enrolled among his friends. By this act he, as it were, puts on the livery of the Redeemer, and is to be recognised henceforth as his soldier and servant. Now, the Bible declares that God has ordained only two rites as badges of his people's profession. It tells us, that by being baptized, and by ratifying our baptism at a communion table, we are distinguished as Christ's followers, but it drops not the slightest hint of any other sacred ceremony by which such a distinction may lawfully be made ? When then your church declares the sign of the cross to be " a lawful and honourable badge," does she not invade the Lord's prerogative, and add to this humanly devised rite one other feature peculiar to his holy and divine sacraments? I have thus, sir, completely substantiated the charge which I originally advanced against your church, in reference to this point, in ' Presbyterianism Defended.' I have shown that she has made the sign of the cross, to all intents and purposes, as much a distinct sac- rament as any thing set up by human author- ity can be. I have shown that she has ap- pointed it to be a representing symbol and pledge of Christ's merits, a mean of conferring grace, a rite of dedication, and a badge of pro- fession. I call upon you now to prove that, as described in your formularies, explained in y r our teaching, and interpreted by your prac- tice, it serves none of these ends. When you have done this, I shall willingly retract the se- vere language I used in condemning it, and which has given you so much pain, and pro- mise never again to characterise it as "a miserable figment of antiquity " — " an audaci- ous infringement of the prerogative of Christ." Before I take my leave of this sacred sign, (to which, as it is evidently a favourite with you, I am anxious to do every justice,) I must not omit to notice your attempt to procure for it the sanction of the " presbyterian Beza." You tried, as we have already seen, to make him testify in behalf of your system of spon- sors — but in vain. Your present appeal to him will prove to be still more unsuccessful. It will serve but to convict you, before the public, of as flagrant a violation of all contro- versial fairness and honesty as was ever before exhibited. You say, " I know that the presby- terian Beza pronounced it (the sign of the cross) lawful — and told his brethren in England, that 'it was not fit that ministers should leave their office, or people forsake their communion, be- cause of it.' " I flatly deny your assertion. I openly maintain that he never used, in refer- ence to it, the language you have here put into his mouth. I deliberately accuse you, in KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. 2o5 affirming that he approved of this rite and call- ed it lawful, of totally misrepresenting his ex- pressed opinion respecting it. Will it he be- lieved that in the very letter from which you have quoted the garbled extractyou have given, Beza expressly calls the sign of the cross " a most execrable superstition " .' and says, " that he considers those men to have done assuredly well who have driven this rite, out of the church"! I give you the Latin sentence in the note be- low.* I think I see you as you read it — es- pecially when your eye rests upon those fatal capitalsmthe middle. After what has occurred, you will probably never henceforth hear the name " Btza " pronounced without blushing Let me remark, in conclusion, that you have committed a great oversight in not proving, as yot< could easily have done, from the Confession of Faith, that the Church of Scotland recognises and recommends the use of the sign of the cross. This inadvertence you will, of course, rectify in the next edition of your ' Letters.' SECT. IV. KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. This is the next unscriptural arrangement of your church which it is necessary for to me examine. In the 27th Canon, the Church of England commands her ministers " never wit- tingly to administer the communion to any ex- cept to such as kneel." In discussing this subject in ' Sermons on the Church,' you assert- ed that "the Lord's supper is the highest or- dinance in the church of Jesus."f This popish distinction between the sacraments, as to their obligation and importance, I did not expect to hear asserted or maintained by a protestant divine. But, indeed, it seems to be abundant- ly sanctioned by some parts of the discipline and practice of our church. For instance, she has enacted that a deacon may baptize, while he is allowed to celebrate only a part of the communion. Does not this imply that in her estimation there is something higher and holier in the one ordinance than in the other ? You have expressly affirmed this. You have said that the Lord's supper is the highest ordinance in the church. I censured you somewhat severely for this rash statement in 'Presby- terianism Defended.' As you do rot say a word about it in your ' Letters,' I presume you are ashamed of having given utterance to it As usual, however, you have not the candour to acknowledge your fault, or to promise to amend your theology for the future. You still insist that this posture of kneeling is more respectful — more congenial with the humble frame of mind which episcopalians che- rish. You surely ought to remember that there is not a church on earth (except the Church * " Si?ni crucis lit olim aliquis fuerit nsus, earn tamm es»e et quiiiem adlmc aded recentem SUPEST1TIONEM maxim f EXEC'BABILEM cerium est, lit rectissimC fecisse arbitremur, qui semel i'tum rituin ex F.cclrsiis expul- erunt, cuj'isetiam non videmiisqnas siiuliliiaa." — I- pist. Bez. xii, p. 9'J. Genev. I.J76. — For additional prools of llrza's abhorrence of this supi 'rslitious, popish sicn, I refer you to his Tract. Theo. vol. ii, p. 227, and vol. lii. p. 211. + Sermons, p. 157. of Rome) that has been guilty of so gross and systematic a profanation of the Lord's supper as the Church of England. There is, there- fore, to say the least of it, very little modesty in her advocates vindicating her adoption of a kneeling posture, on the ground of her especial and superior respect for the sacredness of the ordinance. I mentioned, as one reason why a kneeling posture was improper, that it is unsuitable to the character of the Lord's supper. It is re- presented in Scripture as a feast of love, and it is not customary to kneel at feasts. You answer this, by telling me that the Lord's sup- per is not & convivial, banquet. I never said that it was. I said that it is a sacred feast. I say so still. And I affirm that the kneeling posture on such an occasion is utterly incon- gruous. It is unsuitable to the character of the Christian passover, which was designed to exhibit the condescension and love of Christ for the church — to be an affecting type of that endearing intimacy which was henceforth to subsist between him and all whom he has deigned to call " his friends." The feelings with which it should be partaken are not so much humility and fear, as thankfulness and joy. How could these latter emotions be suit- ably embodied in the attitude of kneeling? It is well argued, therefore, by Piscator,* that on this very account the Saviour and his disciples chose to receive it sitting, and he holds it as a good argument against the mass, that " it hath no show or resemblance of a banquet." Every one must see that there is a great deal in this objection to your kneeling — that it is unsuita- ble in its very nature. f You cannot evade its force, by pretending to understand me as speaking of a " convivial " entertainment. You say you "could sit among your equals, but you choose to be on your knees in the presence of your God." May I ask you, do you always kneel when God is present? Is this your invariable attitude in church, for example, during the time of public worship ? * In Matt, xxvi, 26, p. 425. + This argument may be strengthened by a farther consideration. Under the Old Testament, the sit. tlog posture was that adopted at enchurisiic.il festi- vals. The Israelites, it is admitted, sat (after the manner of their age and country,) at their feasts of thanksgiving. And the propriety of" this alt'tiule on such occasion 9 we find repeatedly acknowledged by God himself. Ezek.xliv. 3. — I Sam. xvU 5. 1|.— Now, when Jesus Christ appeared in the flesh he seems to have desiguedly retained that poslure in which the Jewish Church had so long celebrated their feasts of thanksgiving, as a suitable one for Ills people to adopt In the observance of the great New Testament festival. The practice was not only fitting in Itself, but sanctioned by universal custom— and especially associated in the Immemorial practice of the JetvUh nation with seasons of religious festivity. When at the Institution of the chilstian passover, our bles- sed Lord sat instead of kneeing with his apostles, we recognize hl.s wisdom in teaching the chutch not only by the very nafire of the posture he ■ssuined, tint by the associations with which it had been so long connected, that he wished his people ever to come to his table as " frit nds," rather than as " ser- vants," after the manner of persons feasting, ra. titer than of those that are adoring. 256 KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. or do you customarily adopt it when you cele- brate the ordinance of baptism ? And yet you know God is as much present on these occa- sions, as during the solemnity of the supper. Besides, if you choose to be always on your knees in the presence of your God, your reve- rential demeanour would seem greatly to surpass that of the apostles. They did not fall down on their knees at the original celebration of this rite, when " God manifest in the flesh," was visibly present among them. They sat, we are told, in the presence of their God. And you will find that on another occasion, the miraculous feeding of the five thousand, our Lord expressly commanded the disciples and the multitude to sit down on the grass, and they retained that position throughout, though, during the time, the Saviour addressed a so- lemn prayer to Heaven for a blessing on tbe food. Surely, according to your reasoning, the disciples and the multitude were wrong in adopting such a posture. Where was their reverence ? Ought they not to have been "on their knees in the presence of their God " ? I may as well notice, in connexion with this point,a strange remark y ou make,that" through- out the Bible the bended knee accompanied devotion." You say — "We like to be in ac- cordance with the Bible. We find, that in approaching the footstool of Deity, Abraham and Elijah, David and Moses, Stephen and Paul, all knelt ; and we like ti> he in unison with them." In this statement, sir, you exhibit an ignorance of the Bible, which I believe a superintendent of one of our Sabbath-schools would be astonished to find in any commonly intelligent pupil. It is perfectly unacc juntable in one whose profession it is to study and ex- plain the sacred oracles. Why, sir, do you not know that standing is as scriptural an atti- tude in devotion as kneeling, and that even sitt'ng, as a devotional posture, can plead Bible sanction. As an example of sitting, I refer you to Judges, xx, 26, also to 1 Chron. xvii, 16, where you will find that David, the king, sat before the Lord, whilst he put up to him a solemn prayer. With respect to standing, did not Abraham stand before the Lord when he interceded for Sodom? Did not the Levites and all the priests stand up, and bless the Lord their God, in that solemn address to Heaven recorded in Nehemiah, ix, 5 ? Are not Moses and Samuel repeatedly described as standing before God, when pleading with him for the people ? * Did not our blessed Lord, when he used the language recorded in Mark, xi, 25 — " when ye stand p ,- aying, forgive," — if not expressly enjoin, at least fully approve of the standing attitude in prayer? What, then, sir, after all these testimonies, are we t > think of your assertion, that you kneel, because you wish to be in accordance with the Bible ? Sim- ply, that it is an assertion made in utter igno- rance or wilful disregard of the plain fact, that Bible testimony is as much in favour of stand ing as of kneeling in devotion. * Jeremiah, xr, 1. A second argument which I urged against kneeling at the Eucharist was, that it was con- trary to Christ's example. You are sorely puzzled, and I do not wonder at it, to know how to set aside this argument. You have re- course to two expedients. I shall examine them both, and show that they will not serve you. First, you say that it was uncertain what Christ's posture was. The Scripture, you af- firm, does not tell us what it was. I assert that it does tell us, and that most plainly, that our Lord's posture was the then customary sit- ting posture. It informs us that our Lord and his apostles sat down in the first instance to the Passover. Thus it is said in Matt, xxvi, 20 : " Now when the even was come he sat down with the twelve. " During the interval that occurred between this and the instituting of the Christian feast, we know that our Lord engaged in washing his disciples' feet. After he had finished that action, however, it is dis- tinctly noted that he sat down again, as we read in John xiii. 12: " After he had washed their feet and had taken his garments, and was set down again. " Now, if we look to the 26th vei - se of the 26th chapter of Matthew, we shall see what the posture was when he commenced the celebration of that holy rite which was to supersede the Paschal supper. " As they were eating, " it is said, " Jesus took bread and bles- sed it. " Is it not clear from this language that the apostles were sitting when Christ took the bread ? As they were eating or whilst they did eat — as Maldonatus expounds it, " before they arose — before the tables and the rem- nants of the food were removed. " * It cannot be imagined, if we look to the style of the sac- red narrative, that the apostles altered their position whilstonr Lord was taking, or blessing, or distributing the bread. This was the opin- ion of one whose authority I know will have great weight with you. " We do not read, " says Calvin, " that falling down they adored, but that as they were sitting, they received and did eat. " f You will thus see, sir, from the plain statement of Scripture thus com- mented on by the learned, that the fact of the Paschal supper having preceded the Christian, gives no countenance to the assumption that the posture of the latter was not a sitting one. Your next shift on this point is that the original word rendered, sat doivn, does not lite- rally denote the sitting posture — that in all probability the attitude was that of recumbency — in which case, you say, we " run wide of the pattern" ourselves— just as if our deviating from Christ's example in this matter would prove that you were right in contravening it. But it is far from difficult to show that the posture adopted by the Jews at meals differed little, if any thing, from that used by us now * " Antequam siirserent — anteqnam mensre et cibo- rum reliquiae removerentnr." Com. Matt. xxvi. 26. + Non lesimus p:o>tratos adorasse, srd ut erant dis- cuinbentes accepisse et manducasse." Instit. lib. iv. c. xvii, sec. 36. KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. 257 and that our translators have most properly rendered the original term, " they sat down." It can be shown, for instance, that such au- thorities as Thomasius and Scapula, in their dictionaries, take a wr/rr*, ivttukivu, icvuxtiftai, and the Latin words discumbo and recumbo, (used by Alius Montanus, Tremellius, and Beza, in their versions,) to signify, not merely lying along, but rather satiny upright at table. It has been shown by Didoclavius* out of Casaubon, that the ordinary posture which the Jews observed at their banquets was sitting nearly upright, leaning the left arm upon the table. Nay, even Lightfoot, whom you have the hardihood to refer to in a foot-note — as if he gave any countenance to your folly — bears express testimony to the same effect. The learned Dr. assures us, that " at other meals they either sat, as we do, with their bodies erect, or when they would enlarge them- selves to more freedom of feasting and refresh- ment, they sat upon the beds and leaned upon the table on their left elbow. And on the Pass- over night they used this leaning posture, being the posture of freemen, in memorial of their freedom."f In addition to these testi monies, let me submit to you the two follow- ing considerations First, the Greek word used by Matthew and Mark, translated sat dnwn, is used also by John in his 6th chapter and 1 1th verse, to describe the people's sitting down on the grass to eat the loaves and fishes. Now will you tell us that the people on that occasion were in a state of recumbency, or (as some other disputants of your school have expressed it.) Iginq along f Again, if the apostles were recumbent at the last supper, with what conve- nience could they perform the actions of eat- ing and drinking? How, for example, could they in such a position carry the wine unspil- led'to their mouths ? Thus Matthew Henry J says, in speaking of our Lord sitting down with the twelve — " He sat down in the usual table gesture, not lying on one side, for it was not easy to eat or possible to drink in that pos- ture — but sitting upright, though perhaps sit- ting low. It is the same word that is used to describe his posture at other meals." The truth is, that the idea of the apostles' lying ai- re' lining on this solemn occasion is as con- trary to reason as to Scripture. They sat down to the Paschal — they sat at the sacramental supper. They leaned, it is true, in all proba- bility, their left arm upon the table while they sat, for this was the customary table posture of their age and nation, and while we now adopt the table posture of our time and coun- try, (though it may vary in this trilling parti- cular from theirs,) we unquestionably conform ourselves to their In ly example. I come now to the second expedient to which you have recourse to justify you in refusing to imitate Christ and his apostles. You say that we are inconsistent in objecting to your prac- tice in this matter, for we do not in all things * iCalderwood) Alt. Dam. p. 544. + Temple Service, chap. 13. } Com. on Matt. xxrx. 20. imitate Christ ourselves. And you specify, as instances, our not administering the sacrament in an upper room, not confining it to males, not observing it after sunset, &c. Let me re- commend to you, sir, a good old rule iu divinity which you would do well to study and follow. You will find it a safe guide in the midst of your manifold perplexities. It is this, that "we are bound to imitate Christ and the commended example of his apostles in all things wherein it is not evident that they had special reasons moving them thereto, with which we have no concern." Now, you will perceive that in the instances you have mentioned, ad- ministering the communion to a particular number of persons, at a particular time, in a particular place, there were certain special reasons influencing Christ. These reasons were incidental, local, temporary ; they do not affect us. They are not to regulate our prac- tice now, and it is manifest from the whole tenor of the New Testament that they were not intended to do so. But it is very different with regard to the sitting posture at the com- munion. This was a posture which, there is internal evidence from the sacred narrative to show, was deliberately and designedly selected by our Lord ; all the motives which could be supposed to induce him to prefer it are still obliging us, nor can we produce a single rea- son why we should refuse to follow his exam- ple. I think it will now be evident to you that the inconsistency in which you regard presby- terians as involved in this matter is altogether imaginary. I think you must admit (if you will be but reasonably candid) that without copying to the very letter every thing that Christ said and did, they have earned an in- disputable right to arraign and rebuke the kneeling of the Church of England at the com- munion. I may here take occasion to remark, that you very wisely omit in your letter all refer- ence to an argument which you advanced in ' Sermons on the Church' to warrant your kneeling, and which I exposed with merited severity in ' Presby terianism Defended.' That argument was, that because Christ altered the posture in the Jewish, therefore the English church had a right to change it in the Christian passover. You said, "for our non-conformity with the conduct of our Master (which we deny was in this instance intended to be a binding pattern) we plead his non-conformity to the rule and ancient usage of Israel." That is, in other words, because the King of Zion, for obvious wise reasons, adopts a particular pos- ture, therefore the Church of England, for no reason at all, may nbliae all his people to adopt a different one ? For this notable plea, it might have been conceived you were at least entitled to the credit of originality. This, however, is by no means the case. You seem to have borrowed it from Hooker. In trying to vindi- cate the practice of kneeling, he says:* " Our Lord himself did that which custome and long • Eccles. Pol. lib. r, Sect. 08. 2 H 258 KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. usage had made fit, we that which fitnesse and great decency hath made usuall." Here, this champion of episcopacy hesitates not to insti- tute a parallel between the authority of the Son of God and the authority of the Church of England. Nay, he absolutely insinuates that the church showed greater decency in her atti- tude than the blessedRedeemer did in that which he appointed ? Now, I do maintain that this is utter blasphemy. I would advise you to be cautious in future how you gather out of the "judicious" Hooker. I come now to examine your mode of dis- posing of my third general argument against kneeling. It was this, that the practice had been prostituted to idolatry, and therefore should be abandoned. You assert, in the first instance, that kneeling at the Lord's supper was used a thousand years before transubstantiation arose— that it is not (as has been hitherto generally admitted) the offspring of that here- sy. Now, it is not at all necessary to my argu- ment, to show that you are mistaken in this; nevertheless I shall take the trouble to do so. I observe, then, that you have not furnished any evidence of your flippant affirmation, that the usual posture of the ancient church was kneeling. You profess, indeed, to furnish it, for you tell us in the text to consult Tertullian, Cyril, and Chrysostom ; and then in the foot- note you inscribe such mysterious abbrevia- tions as De Orat.— and Catech. Mystagog — and Horn, iii, in Epist. ad Eph. — all calculated to fill the reader with mingled wonder at your vast research, and stupefaction at the uncom- mon presumption of the man who would cavil at or even suspect your positions. Who would question or deny what can be substantiated by Be Orat. and Catech. Mystagog ? Sir, I have carefully examined these authorities to which you have referred, (and by the very names of whose works you must have hoped to frighten into conviction the mere English reader,) and I am compelled to declare, that you have most shamefully misrepresented theirtestimony, and that not a single iota of support do they give to the position you wish to establish. With respect to the first of them, Tertullian, I fear- lessly maintain, that there is not, in the chap- ter to which you refer, a sentence or a phrase which by any effort of even episcopalian inge- nuity can be tortured into a proof that the pri- mitiveChristians knelt at the Lord's table. You next quote from Cyril. The passage on which you rely is the following. I givb you both the original Greek and the Latin translation of it in the note below.* The communicant is thus addressed : " Approach also to the cup of his blood, not with extended hands, but bending or boiving, in the manner of adoration or venera tion, saying amen." The only word in this passage expressive of the attitude employed in * TlZ'^iX " xctl r " vroTigit? otrx.vvr,; xai irtSxtrftitro; Xtyajv to aft»v. Accede et ad calicem sanguinis illius,non extendensma- nus, Bed promts adorationii in modum et vsnerationis, dicens amen. receiving, and from which, consequently, you can even pretend to obtain support for your theory, is obviously the word xwruv. Now, this word I find, by referring to my Greek con- cordance, (I hope your abhorrence of concord- ances does not extend to Greek ones,) is used only three times in the New Testament, and in each case it is translated " stooped down," namely, Mark, i, 7; John viii, 6, 8. More- over on consulting a lexicon, I have observed the use of the word exemplified in numerous quotations from classic authors, and in none of them does it signify kneeling. It is to be carefully borne in mind, that in the former part of the addresses already quoted from Cyril, and in other places which might easily be ad- duced from his writings, it is intimated that the bread was to be received standing. A new posture was to be assumed, or gesture made, in receiving the cup; and that this was bend- ing forward or bowing the head in approaching to it is manifest from the term {xwrruv) which the ancient father has employed to describe it. So clear and undeniable is this, that even Bingham — thorough-going episcopalian as he was, and useful as you have found him hitherto, in furnishing you with quotations and referen- ces — deserts you here, and candidly admits that the interpretation you have put upon this word is totally indefensible. " Nor is the ar- gument," says he,* " much more solid, that others bring out of Cyril's Catechism, when he bids his communicant receive the eucharist, Kvirmv, for that signifies notkneeling, but stand- ing in a bowing posture." Examine we now your reference to Chrysos- tom. The evidence which you profess r.o de- rive from him is founded on these words — " Fall down and communicate when the table is spread and the king present." In the first place, I must inform you that Chrysostom makes use of no such language. He does in- deed say — " Sit down," (or, if you will,) " re- cline and partake ; " but he does not add the words you have put into his mouth. There is something like them, indeed, in the sentence, but not in the connection in which you have placed them. This proves that you could not have taken the passage from the original. — But with reference to this proof of kneeling from Chrysostom, I shall give his words in the original Greek. He says, ivxvv avaKurov xai pirixs. This you render " fall down and com • municate." Where did you learn that uvukit™ means to fall down, in the sense of to kneel ; for thus you must, of course, understand it ? Why, sir, if you refer to the 1 4th verse of the 22nd chapter of Luke's Gospel, you will find that it is the very same word that is there used to describe our Lord's table attitude at the Passover— the same that is there rendered by our translators " he sat down." And yet you have the effrontery to insinuate that it de- notes the kneeling posture ! Where then, on the whole, I would now ask, are your proofs, that " kneeling was used in the early church centuries before the doctrine of the corporeal * Book xv, p. 226. KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. 259 presence was known " ? Echo answers, Where ? We appeal to Tertullian — he is silent as the grave. To Cyril — he speaks of walking for- ward towards the cup, and boiving. To Chry- sostora — he makes mention of sitting down, or reclining, and partaking. But where shall we meet with evidence of kneeling ? Not a jot or tittle have you been able to produce. The very authorities whom you quote contradict you to your face. Seldom, I think, have the annals of controversy presented any thing equal to this for unabashed recklessness of statement, and deliberate perversion of the facts of history. I will now, sir, prove to you, on unquestion- able authority, that kneeling is an innovation — was unheard of in the Christian church till transubstantiation arose. The following well- known testimony of Tertullian ought to be of itself sufficient to settle the point: "On the Lord's day we esteem it unlawful to fast or to worship kneeling." * How, sir, can you evade the force of this testimony extracted from one of your own pretended witnesses? Will you insinuate that perhaps the ancient Christians did not usually communicate on the Sabbath, but on some other day ? Should you take that mode of escaping the difficulty, you will be met by the following testimony from your favourite Bingham : " If we run over," says he,f " the whole history of the three first centuries, we will find it to have been the practice of all in general, both clergy and laity, to receive the communion every Lord's day on pain of excom- munication." Mark now, sir, the force of this evidence. Tertullian states, that in his day it was accounted unlawful to kneel on the Sab- bath; Bingham affirms, that in the primitive church the communion was received every Lord's day by the clergy and laity — therefore the inference is irresistible, and must commend itself to your logical mind, that the ancient Christians never knelt at the communion. I might consider this point now settled, but I shall favour you with one or two additional proofs. In the Nicene Council, held 327, it was decreed, I that none might pray kneeling, but only standing, on the Lord's day. Basil, who lived in the latter part of that century, testifies to the same effect. § Hospinian also describes the same practice as having then ob- tained, and alleges sundry reasons for it.|| And in another placed he states that in Ter- tullian's days the Christians " stantes sacramen- ta percipiebant." Eusebius mentions a letter written in the year 157, in which notice is taken of the manner in which the communion was received in the church of Alexandria, and in which it is distinctly intimated that the pos- ture used was not kneeling.** Socrates snysff that the ancient Christians partook of the Supper "in a table gesture, eating it at their » Die domlnico jejnnare nefas ducimus vel de geni- culis adnrare. — De Orat. + Antiq. v, 9. J Can. 20. { lib. de !>pir. Sane, cap. 27. II De fest. Christ, fol. 26, b. 1t De Ori?. tempi, lib. ii, cap. 28. •• Hist. Eccles. lib. vii, cap. t*. ++ Lib. 6. love feasts ; " and to sum up all, we have, in more modern times, bishop Jewell himself (and, sir, " this man was a divine ") declaring that in Basil's time it was held that every man was bound, by an apostolical tradition, at ser- mon, at prayer, and at the communion, to stand upright.* Now, sir, what think you of these testimonies? Will you still affirm that the ancient Christians (whatever may have been the posture they customarily adopted) knew any thing of kneeling at the Sacrament? No, sir, this is a modern posture (or rather impos- ture), which popery has brought in, as Peter Martyr testifies, "on account of transubstan- tiation and the real presence. "f That mons- trous dogma was formally received in the thir- teenth century, in the reign of Innocent III, and Honorius his successor decreed, that thenceforward kneeling at the communion should be used by all, in token of adoration of the "brcaden god." J Thus, sir, the evidence is complete and incontrovertible, that your cus- tom of kneeling is a " Rome-derived " custom. — And, after all, why should you be vexed at this? Is not Rome your "sister"? Why should you harshly say of her adoption of kneeling, that " it is the offspring of a mon- strous heresy " ? Do you not hear a poetical strain floating from the halls of Oxford, and thus admonishing you for such naughty lan- guage : — " Speak gently of thy sister's fall "? § The charge which I brought against your church, and which I now reiterate, was, that seeing the practice of kneeling had been abused by papists to idolatry, she disgraces herself and dishonours God by retaining it. You say that the principle on which I found this charge, will neither "bear the handling of common sense nor divinity." My principle, you say, is, " the practice has been prostituted to idola- try, therefore let it be discontinued." Now, sir, it is no such thing. Why will you be so disingenuous ? You have carefully suppressed (as is your custom) a most important part of my statement. That statement is, that every thing perverted to idolatry should be given up, unless it be enjoined in Scripture. If it be neither commanded by revelation, nor neces- sary by nature, it should, most undoubtedly, be abandoned. And this principle I am per- fectly willing to abide by and establish. I can establish it by divine precepts, by scriptural examples. As an instance of the former, mark the injunction which God gives his ancient people, with regard to idolatrous nations, with whom they were associated : || " After the doings of the land of Egypt wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do, and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances." Read again the passage in Deut. xii, 30, &c, which I before cited for you, and which you found it convenient to pass by unnoticed : — " Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared * Def. of Apol., pa Re 237. + Propter transubstantiationem et realem presentiam. % Decretal, lib. 3. i See Kcble's Hymns. I l*v. xviii, 3. 260 KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. by following them, &c, saying, how did these nations serve their gods, even so will I do likewise — thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God." Here, observe, the Israelites are expressly required to avoid all symbolising with the idolatrous people among whom they dwelt, in any of their religious rites or institutions. If you ask for an instance of the practical re- cognition of this principle, I direct you to the case of Hezekiah.* We are told there, that the king, in his zeal for the true religion, not only abolished such monuments of idolatry as at their first institution were inventions of men, but brake down also the brazen serpent, which had been originally set up at God's own com- mand, because he saw it perverted to idolatrous worship. What, sir, say you to this example ? You behold here the royal reformer utterly abolishing a custom innocent in itself, nay, profitable — for it was a memorial to the Jews of God's mercy in the wilderness— simply be- cause he saw it turned into an occasion of idolatry. Is it not then the bounden duty of the Church of England to banish from her worship a practice which in past ages has been used to the dishonour of God, and which at this present moment is the recognised symbol of the idolatry of millions ? Is not this more especially her duty when the practice in ques- tion can plead neither Scripture nor necessity in its behalf — nay, as I have proved, is un- suitable in itself and directly contrary to the example of Christ and his apostles ? What feasible justification, I ask, can be entered into of her conduct in thus pertinaciously cleaving, in the very face of bible precept and bible precedent, to this indefensible usage ? It will not do to tell us, as you have done, that if we refuse to the Church of England li- berty to kneel, because that posture has been abused to superstition, we should, on the same principle, raze many of the churches in Scot- land, and break up the communion plate, and silence the bells — because these were once perverted to idolatry. This argument of yours, sir, is a complete non-sequitur, and shows that your logic is as defective as your theology. Observe that houses of prayer, communion plate, and bells, are of important use : they serve to promote the due observance of public worship. Can the same be said of kneeling in the communion ? Is it necessary ? If it were totally dispensed with,would any inconvenience arise ? Besides, there is another considera- tion — churches, communion vessels, bells, &c, are not used by presbyterians as things sacred. We are not enlightened enough to perceive that there is any special holiness in stone and lime, or brass, or pewter. We employ these things for necessity, or convenience, but we do not attach any peculiar sacredness to them, nor do we conceive that they would be at all profaned in being occasionally appropriated (as they often are, and have been,) to civil uses. But mark the distinction with respect to the kneeling posture enjoined by the Church of England. She regards it as a sacred rile, * 2 Kings, xviii, 4. never uses it except in worship, and accounts it so imperative that she will in no case dis- pense the sacrament to any except they ob- serve it. Do you not see, sir, that there is a wide distinction here ? Churches have, in former times, been abused by superstition, but we are not on that account to pull them down, because they are necessary in themselves, and are not esteemed holy by us; but kneeling at the communion, having been and being still grossly profaned, ought to be given up, for it is not only unscriptural and unnecessary, but has ever, by your church, been held sacred — an essential element of divine worship. I would here take occasion to observe, that though in one place you represent it as a false principle, that we should give up those usages that have been perverted by errorists, yet in another, you express your high approbation of it. You actually maintain that your church abstains from the sitting posture on this very principle ! You say, " we kneel because we do not like to be near arianism or popery. The former introduced sitting to denote equa- lity with Christ, and the chief priest of the lat- ter sits at the Eucharist, • showing himself that he is God.' " Here, sir, you plainly, and most inconsistently with your former state- ment, recognise the rule as a good one, that we should avoid symbolising in worship with the advocates of error. But you forget the salutary limitation of the doctrine, that is, that we should not imitate them except in those things which are necessary or agreeable to the word of God. Thus, if Arius adopted the sitting posture, he did only what the Saviour himself had sanctioned, and you should be a follower of him as he (in this respect) was of Christ. And if the pope sits, I beg to in- form you that he does so, not (as you absurdly state) to "show his equality with God," but to denote his literal imitation of the apostles.* His adoption of this posture, therefore, so far from forming a condemnation of our practice, is a direct recognition of the excellence of the prineiple on which it is founded. Whateverthe motives of his Holiness may he, however, I have only to say, that I heartily commend his practice in this matter to the careful imi- tation of the Church of England. I am sure that she will be perfectly safe in, thus far at least, following his example. I wish I could say as much for the countless other instances inwhich shewalks in the footsteps of the "man of sin.'' Having thus seen, that you cannot on this plea (namely, that its abandonment would in- volve us in the surrender of many of our Chris- tian privileges,) vindicate the Church of Eng- land from the charge of sanctioning idolatry in the retaining of the kneeling posture, I shall now notice another ground on which you rest her justification. That is, that she explains her conduct by the rubric, in which she de- clares that no adoration of the elements is in- tended. Now, sir, with regard to this rubric, I confess that I feel some surprise and no little • Vide Bales de Missa, par. ii. KNEELING AT THE COMMUNION. 2G1 chagrin that you have passed over, in total and ungraleful silence, the lengthened and success- ful inquiry which, in ' Presbyterianism Defend- ed,' I prosecuted into its origin and history. I there showed, on the testimony of Dr. M'Crie, that it was introduced into the prayer-book at first by the advice and influence of John Knox* — that afterwards it was expunged in the reign of Elizabeth, mainly by the queen's personal influence, in order to please the papists, and then finally that it was restored in the reign of Charles II, not from any desire on the part of the episcopalian clergy to uplift a testimony against error, but, according to one of their own historians, (Collier,) to please some people of " contentious humours."f Such, sir, is the ru- bric explanatory of kneeling. What a monu- mentof yourchurch's zeal for the truth ! Surely you ought to have taken some notice of my researches on this point, seeing that I have thus been the mean of enabling you exactly to as- certain the amount of credit which is due to your church for its appearance in her formu- laries. But let us now enquire whether the inser- tion of this caveat against idolatry will justify the Church of England in imposing on her members an idolatrous usage. I submit to you, sir, that it cannot, and that for the following considerations among many. First, no church can be said sincerely to have repented of, or turned from the superstition whereby others have provoked the Lord to anger, which insists upon retaining (no matter with what recorded explanations) the instruments and monuments thereof. Again, that church can never be said to show true compassion to the souls of those who are without, which conforms to them in those unscriptural usages in which they place the chief part of their religion, and which thus becomes accessary to the hardening of them in their delusion and sin. Once more, that church cannot be said to deal faithfully with the souls of her own members, which binds them to the stated observance of idolatrous ceremonies, * In proof of this fact, it may be well to place on re. cord here the following testimony of Dr. M'Crie. Speak- ing of the Ktlormer being in London, on the occasion ot the review and second correction of the Boi>k of C ora- mon-prayer, hesajs: "He had interest to procure an important change in the communion office, completely excluding the notion of the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament, and guarding against the adoration of the elements, ton much countenanced by the practice ot knetlmg at their reception, which was stilt continued. Knoxspiaksot these amendments with great satisfac- tion, in Ins ' Admonition to the Professors of the I ruth in England.' 'Also,' says In-, 'God gave holdness and know- ledge to the Court of parliament, to take awny the round clipped god wherein standclh all the holiness of the pa- pists, and also to takeaway the most part of superstitions (kneeling at the Lord's table excepted), which belore prolaned Christ's true religion.' " These alteration! 1 , it is larther stated by this historian, gave great offence to the papists, so much so, that alter the accessiou of queen Mary, Or. Weston, in disputing witli Latimer, bitterly complained of Knox's influence in piocuriug them. " A runagate .Vcor,'' says Ik, '-did take away the adoration or worshipping of t hrist in the sacrament, by whose procurrmrnt that heresie was put into the last Communion Book." — M'Crie's Li:e of Knox, p. 54, Ld. 1BU9. + M'Crie'* Life of Knox, note 2, p. 408. and thus presents to them a temptation, which Scripture, reason, and experience show to be great, to fall back into the ways and practices of idolatry. Can you pretend to believe, sir, that your church wipes off the guilt thus incur- red, and neutralizes the pernicious influence thus exerted, by an explanatory parenthesis in the prayer-book ? Can any reasonable mind suppose that the insertion of a solitary dis- claimer there warrants her in saying, that she is in all this avoiding " the very appearance of evil"? What — is the man who digs a deep pit by the way side, and then warns travellers, journeying that way in the darkness, to avoid it, to be held excusable ? And shall the Church of England be justified in allowing pitfalls for the soul to remain untaken away, because she carefully proclaims that she wishes all to avoid them ? As well might it be said that Hezekiah should not have broken to pieces the brazen serpent, orour Lord have rejected the ceremony of the Jewish purifyings, or the apostle have abolished the rite of circumcision, seeing it was only necessary that they should enter their solemn protest against these superstitions, and warn men of the danger that attended them. No, sir — it is the duty of the church not only publicly to teach that no evil is to be done, but to remove every stumbling-block from before the feetof the unwary — to take away the causes and the occasions of evil.* This doctrine, these sentiments are not new; they were held by the fathers of the early church — they were openly proclaimed by the wisest and best of the Reformers. Let me solicit your special attention to one or two of their testimonies. Tertullian has this lan- guage : " As we may give nothing to the ser- vice of an idol, so may we borrow nothing from the service of an idol." On this principle, he justifies the Christian soldier who refused to wear a garland, because therein he would be conformed to the pagans f Augustine says, " If you ask how the pagans may be won, leave all their solemnities, forsake all their toys." And again, he condemns fasting on the Sab- bath, because the Manichees did so.J Gre- gory (as quoted by bishop Jewell), approves of a decree of the council of Toledo, which forbade the ceremony of thrice dipping in bap- * The well-known quaint illustration used by Rem, in writing to bishop Gruvul in 1665, places ibis subject in a very just light,—" If," sa\s he, "ye have rejected the doctrine of traiisuhslanlialion, and the practice of Worshipping the host, why do you symbolise with po- pery, and seem to hold both liy knxi ling at the commu- nion?" Grindal replied that the rubric accompanied the s-rvice liook.an.l informed the people that no adoration was intended. "Oh! I understand you," said Hera, " there was a certain great lord who repaired his house, and having finished it left before his gale a gnat stone for which lie had nooccasion. This stone caused many people in the dark to stumble and tall. Complaint was ma5 for the purpose of retaining or securing mem- bers to the Church of England — for any pur- pose whatsoever ? Canons, sir, are sacred things when they have been once solemnly subscribed by ministers of the gospel. I envy not the feelings of the man who has assented to the canons of the Church of England — but still less do I covet the position of him who, having once subscribed, deliberately violates or evades them. That your interpretation of the canon is a mere evasion is self-evident. It asserts a prin- ciple of interpretation which it were easy to show would render completely nugatory every one of your ecclesiastical enactments. — Be- sides it is a principle which, every one knows, has never been recognised in the practice of the Church of England. Her ministers have never acted, and do not now act as if they were at liberty to refuse to read the service over those who (as they conceive) ought to have been excommunicated. No such thing.* If the sentence of excommunication have not ac- tually passed on them, they invariably perform over them the office for the dead. I appeal, in proof of this, to common observation. I confidently appeal to every individual who reads these pages, whether he has not repeat- edly heard episcopalian ministers read this service over persons of whose salvation no well- grounded hope could be formed — over world- lings and profligates — over habitual violators of God's laws and despisers of his ordinances — over men who (though they may have pre- served a decent exterior before society) have, so far as respects all vital religion, lived and died without God in the world ? Over charac- ters such as these, sir, I again advisedly assert, ministers of the Church of England have fre- quently read, and do continue, year after year, to read the burial service ; and of the great sin and shame involved in compelling them thus to act, I again repeat it, that church is not and cannot be " held guiltless." * So far from this, they themselves admit that they are compelled to read it over all sorts of characters. Let us hear the Uev. Mr. Ailchisoii, of Glasgow, in this very year (IWI) thus frankly acknowledging his slavery. "With sorrow do I confess it," says he, " we are often obliged to use the service over those (or whom it was not intended." Having then gone on to lament the increase of adulterers, fornicators, and drunkards, he asks, " Km is the church to lower her standard hefore the vices of her children? Is she to make concessions to their un- righteousness? Is our holy mother, the spouse of Christ, to yield to the rebellion of her and uti ful offspring ? No — them she must reform— hut she must not, for their transgressions, deprive her 7(H>0 who have not howed the knee to liaal of her beautiful services." That is, better to go on as usual, sending adulterers, fornicators, and drnnkcrds to heaven, than alter one jot or tittle of the liturgy ! Such a sentiment is worthy ot the man, who, in the very pamphlet from which we are quoting, has used the following atrocious language respecting the Reformation: — "O when will tins babble Refor- mation hurst?" " Alas! we know not how many a soul, now drinking the hitter cup of eternal death, ones its agonies and torments to that Reformation, and to the agents who brought it about! " " Protestantism seems to have snapped in twain the golden links that hound faith and works together, " &c. See " I he truth with boldness, " by David Aitchison, M.A., Assist. Pastor of St. Andrew's Chapel, Glasgow, KT>- It may he necessary to assure the incredulous reader, that the writer ol the above sentences is actually a Prottstant clergyman. But leaving this entirely out of view, I main- tain that even supposing your burial service denied to the grossly wicked, and used only over those who have died in a credible profes- sion, it is even in this restricted point of view utterly indefensible, and ought not to be read by a christian clergyman. Observe, sir, and this is the real point at issue, the charge against your service is, that it affirms the absolutely certain salvation of all over whom it is recited. Can you deny this? You have not denied it. Mark the language of the opening statement: " Forasmuch as it hath pleased God, of his great mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother hi re departed." What means this? You talk of "high hope" — of "charitable presumption. " Why, sir, this is perfect con- viction — undoubting certainty. And what right, I ask, have you to utter that language over every grave whose tenant may have made a good profession and preserved throughout life a comparatively blameless walk? Is it necessary to remind you that all this may have been the case, and yet the individual, after all, not have been really a believer in Christ? Do you require to be told that many appear to men to be Christians, whom God knows to be hypo- crites ? Does not your Bible teach you that mere outward profession will not justify an in- fallible decision as to tho state of any man — that multitudes live and die in communion with the church who have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God? Why then, sir, will your church compel her ministers to proclaim over the graves of all who have kept up, in this life, but the " form of godli- ness," (supposing her testimony to be thus limited,) that the souls of all such, " Almighty God hath, in his great mercy, taken to him- self " ? Who gave her authority to do this ? In daring to claim it, is she not intruding into the place of God, and impiously wielding the prerogative of the heart-searching King ? I ask you, in all solemnity, will you, can you seriously attempt to vindicate her practice in this matter ? Are you able to reconcile it with Scripture, with reason, with the dictates of con- science, with respect for the feelings of God's people, and with true charity to the souls of unconverted men? Oh, sir, reflect how many of the latter class are present at ev* rv inter ment of the dead ! How many of llie young, the ignorant, the thoughtless — how many of the hardened and the depraved — how many decent formalists and impenitent worldlings are usually spectators of the solemn scene! What must be the impression made on charac- ters such as these when the words of the burial sen ice sound in their ears They hear the minister of Christ declaring, in the most so- lemn and unequivocal language, that the s.ml of the departed has been taken away in mercy to be for ever with the Lord. They bethink them of the qualities of him whose remains now lie hefore them ; they call to mind how ho lived and how be died. They institute u mental comparison between bis conduct and their own ; and the fatal inference immediately suggests itself — if he is safe, why should ue 2 I 2G6 BURIAL SERVICE. tremble ? He was no better tban ourselves ; let us banish our misgivings — " we shall have peace, though we walk in the imagination of our heart to add drunkenness to thirst." I ask you, is there not room to fear that multi- tudes have been led to build themselves up in delusion by listening to this service — have stifled, even while standing in the church-yard, the rising convictions of conscience, and re- turned to their homes and their occupations, whispering to their souls, "peace, peace, when there is no peace '' ? Ah ! sir, that is a fearful responsibility which Christ's ministers incur when they cast a stumblingblock before the feet of sinners — when they say any thing or do any thing which tends to harden them in their sin ! " Woe unto them," saith God, " that call evil good and good evil — put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter— darkness for light, and light for darkness ! " But you are very far from admitting that there is any peculiar responsibility, connected with this matter, resting on the ministers of the Church of England. On the contrary, you conceive that the part they take in this service entitles them to the praise of superior and abounding charity. You delight to represent them " as standing beside the coffin of their fellow- worm and hoping, ay, even against hope, that the soul of the departed is with Christ." You tell us of " the christian love which be- lieves that God may have whispered penitence and peace to many a soul, evena< the sunset of an ill-spent life." And then, in strong contrast with this beautiful christian spirit, you pour- tray a system of" cold criticism, and pharisaic exclusiveness, and daring decision on the fate of departed sinners," leaving us to discover (no difficult task) the portion of the religious community to which, in your opinion, the lat- ter hateful temper belongs. Now I have just demonstrated that your church proclaims and compels her clergy, in the most solemn of all circumstances, repeatedly to proclaim, that mul. titudes who may have never truly repented, but have gone down to hell with a lie in their right hand, " the Almighty hath in great mercy taken to himself." Verily, sir, if every system must be one of " cold criticism" which shrinks from conniving at such a monstrous iniquity as this — I rejoice that with such a system I stand connected. If "pharisaic exclusiveness" must attach to every minister who will not sin his soul by declaring what is not truer— may I ever continue to " live a pharisee." — But your sys- tem, you will, in despite of all that can be ur- ged, insist on it, is one of " genuine charity." You say, "it hopeth all things." Truly, in a certain sense it does, and believeth all things too; but ah ! sir, can you add the rest of the text and say " it rejoiceth in the truth " ? Charity ! — I ask you — to whom ? To the dead ? — they are beyond the reach of your compassions. However boundless and overflowing, they af- fect not their changeless destiny. To the liv- ing ? I have shown you that this service must exert the most pernicious influence on all who hear it, wounding the religious sensibi- lities of the enlightened Christian, stifling the convictions of the awakened sinner, and har- dening in their delusion the crowd of reckless offenders. Call not then your burial office charity. — It is cruelty. Yes, sir, at the grave of the departed, it may, with all emphasis, be said, " the tender mercies " of your church are " cruel." But now let me call your attention to another mode in which the real nature of the Church of England's charity may be ascertained, in her " arrangements " for the interment of the dead. It may be discovered in reference to those over whom she reads her appointed for- mula ; it may be observed also in respect to those over whom she reads it not. With re- gard to the former, I have shown that she ex- hibits a " plentiful lack " of this christian vir- tue — with regard to the latter, it will now be my duty to show, the case is infinitely worse. You tell us, that " the church has nothing to do with them that are without. " What ! no- thing to do with them ! — not even to pray for their conversion ! But if your meaning be (as I presume it is) that she has nothing to do with them in the sense of deciding on their eternal destinies, I shall now prove to you that you were never more thoroughly mistaken in your life than when you gave utterance to this sen- timent in reference to the Church of England. What, let me ask, is the meaning of that church in refusing to read her burial office in the three instances which have been so oftened mention- ed ? Why does she withhold it from the un- baptized P If it be merely, as you affirm, the expression of " high hope," why does she hesi- tate to give utterance to that hope when stand- ing beside an infant's grave ? Might she not utter it there, with at least as much propriety and safety as beside the grave of one whose dying hour was the " sunset of an ill-spent life " ? Ah ! sir, what answer can you give the bereaved and agonized mother, when, be- holding the clay-cold form of her little one about to be earned forth from her sight for ever, she asks you to read over its tomb the beautiful office for the dead, that her soul, in its deep affliction, may be cheered by the ex- pression of the church's hope ? Can you bear to deny her request — to say to her, that because her babe was unbaptized, therefore the church dare utter no accent of mercy over it here, and hold out no hope of salvation for it hereafter ? And think you, that at that moment you will be able to persuade her that there is charity in the Church of England ? But your church refuses also to read this service at the grave of the unhappy suicide. What ! will she allow us to entertain no hope of any who, in any circumstances, or from any cause, have ever committed the fatal act of self-destruction? Shall none such, in whom the light of reason may have been suddenly quenched, and whose conduct may be supposed to lie beyond the verge of accountability, be permitted to attest hereafter the fulness of a BURIAL SERVICE. •2(37 Saviour's atonement, and the unsearchable depths of the compassion of God ! Is it charity to believe this f But in addition to these, we have also " the excommunicated " among the number of those to whom your church's hope does not extend. And who are they ? Why, sir, it can be de- monstrated that among these are comprehended all who dissent from the Establishment — all who lie beyond the pale of her own ecclesias- tical communion-. By the 5th Canon of the Irish church, quoted below,* all such are vir- tually excommunicated. Over the graves of them or of their offspring,-}- your church, if she act up to her own laws, can whisper no accent of mercy or of hope — " they have separated themselves" while living " from the communion of the saints," and how shall they be received, when departed, into the kingdom of Christ and of God ? Will you then, sir, I ask you, after all this, still dare to speak of your church's "charitable presumption"? Will you, after the fearful instances which this funeral-service affords of her bigoted, intolerant, anathema- tizing spirit, still dare to say, that you " find nothing but comfort in the expressions she employs " ? Go with her into the churchyard, stand with her beside the graves of her depart- ed, behold her on the one hand consigning pro- fligates to heaven, on the other refusing to breathe one accent of hope over the resting- place of the new-born babe, and then, when you have pondered this well, turn round and insult public sense and feeling, if you can, by prating of the charity of the Church of Eng- land ! Let me now, before I examine your note re- specting the testimony of Drs. Sancroft and Tillotson, call your attention, for a moment, to a feature of your burial service to which I did not before make reference. You can hardly be unaware that many have believed and af- firmed that one of the prayers contained in it strongly favours the popish doctrine of purga- tory, seeming to intreat God to perfect the sanctification and the happiness of bis depart- ed saints. In this petition, in particular, "that we, with all those who are departed in tile true faith of thy holy name, may have OUT perfect consummation and bliss in thine everlasting glory," it has been strenuously maintained, by some of the most distinguished advocates of the * " Whosoever shall separate themselves from the communion of Minto, as it 18 approved by the apostles' rules in the Church of In land, and combine themselves together in a in w brotherhood, or shall a Hi mi that there are within this realm other meetings or i-- simlilies than such as hy the laws of this land are held and avowed, which may rightl) challenge to tin insclvcs the mime ol true and lawful churches, It thou be uniig. mi/mcnierf, and not restored till he repent and publicly re- voke his error." + An account was lately given in the Dublin States- man, a high-church organ, of the Rev. T. ti, Bsoott, r minister of the English church, having refnsed to rend the burial-service at the crave of a child baptized by a dissenting minister. He had bet n respectfully requested to do so by the Rev. Robert llond, ol Wisbeacb, and Ins answer, already alludi (I to in the preface lo this Work, presents such a specimen of rainpaul bigotry as has sel- dom, If ever, been paralleled. Church of England, that there is, on the part of the compilers of the prayer-book, an inten- tions! recognition of the advantage and propri- ety of prayers i'ov the dead. In proof <>!' this I shall give you a few testimonies. In the first place, I presume you will not deny that Archbishop Ussher approved of and vindicated the practice of praying for the departed. Bi- shop Collyer held the same opinion. He says, " the recommending the dead to the mercy of God is no innovation of the Church of Rome, but a constant usage of the primitive church."* Again, he shows that the Church of England no where restrains her children from praying for their departed friends, if this approves itself to their consciences, and says expressly, " though the Church of England condemns the Romish doctrine of purgatory, we cannot thence infer her dislike of prayers for the dead." Bi- shop Bull says, " prayers fur the dead, as founded on the hypothesis of purgatory, (and we >io otherwise reject them,) fall together with it."-)- Here, it is affirmed by this learned pre- late, that the Church of England does not re- ject prayers for the dead, while, at the same time, he very inconsistently supposes that she can hold that doctrine without sanctioning purgatory. Hear another episcopalian divine : " To pray for the dead," says Dr. Short, " was the dictate of human nature and the practice of the early church, and no reasonable Chris- tian will blame Dr. Johnson for the cautious manner in which he mentious his mother in his prayers." + But, to adduce one or two still more recent authorities. In the remarkable case of Breeks v. Woolfrey, tried in the court of Arches, it will doubtless be in your recollec- tion, that the judge of the prerogative court delivered the opinion, that there is nothing in the articles or formularies of the Chinch ol' England against praying for the souls of the departed. Again, in Dr. Gilly's account of an excursion to the mountains of Piedmont, in 18:23, we find him, in one place, lamenting thai the people of Geneva had no burial service, in which they could by u prayer commend the sold of the dead for mcrei/, and speak comfort and consolation to the living." § Still farther, in the commencement ofthe present year, w e find it Mated iii the public prints, (and the stale mi nt has not hern contradicted,) that Dr. Hook, vicar of Leeds, while pleaching in his church on the Sabbath morning, "earnestly and elo- quently exhorted his hearers to oiler up their prayers for the souls of those w ho have recently departed this life." And to sum up all, but a short time ago, there was placed on record be- fore the public, the following testimony from a beneficed clergyman of the English church, to Which I invite \oiir .special attention: " If Dr. l'tlsey," sa\s the Rev. Henry Allen, " maintain the cllicac\ of ptayi rs lor the .had. * F.CC. Mist D. ii. bonk, iv, p. 867. + SeeSerm. ili, ed. Wirtou, and Corruptions of Ch. of Rome, m answer to the Bishop ol MeaUl'a queues, vol. 11. p. von. t Short's Hist. of Bngliah Church, See. 14. { See (iilly's Narrative, -Jib ed. London, 1827. 2G8 BURIAL SERVICE. he maintains it in accordance with the views of the compilers of the Prayer-book — beseech- ing God to ' hasten his kingdom — that we, with all those who are departed in the true faith of his holy name, may have our perfect consum- mation and bliss in his everlasting glory ; ' — that the church militant may soon become the church triumphant, and that the church trium- phant, individually and collectively, may soon enjoy that more perfect bliss which awaits them when Christ shall bring them to the fruition of his glory." * From such testimonies as these, sir, so numerous, so respectable, and so recent, it would seem that part of your burial service may be justly suspected of teaching the popish and antiscriptural dogma of prayers for the dead. Let me now advert, for a moment, to the manner in which you try to get rid of the tes- timonies I adduced from some of your own di- vines against the burial office. I stated that the Rev. Thomas Scott so disliked it that he declined to remove from a small parish to a larger one, chiefly because of the frequency with whichj in an extensive charge, he would be obliged to read this service. I gave this fact as I found it in Henderson's edition of Buck's Theological Dictionary, article, Scott. You are pleased to insinuate, that I had no authority whatever for the statement— in other words, that I fabricated it. Now, sir, I have taken the liberty of writing to Dr. Henderson on the subject, and I beg to submit to you the following extract from his reply : " The state- ment which I made in Buck's Theological Dictionaiy, respecting Rev. Thomas Scott's refusing to accept of a larger living for the reason there stated, was founded on informa- tion which I received some years ago from a relative of the family, whose name I do not feel at liberty to mention, but on whose authority, possessing as he did the best means of knowing the fact, the fullest reliance may be placed." You will thus perceive, sir, that the establish- ment of the fact in question depends simply on testimony — the testimony of competent and credible witnesses. For our belief of it we have as good warrant as for our belief of many ano- ther truth, of the reality of which, though we entertain no doubt, we might feel it difficult to furnish a demonstration. Who shall say, for example, that it doesnot rest on as solid grounds as the authorship of ' Letters on Episcopacy ' ? I feel that 1 am not chargeable with any ex- traordinary credulity, when I avouch my belief of a truth, the credibility of which is asserted by a living writer of such standing in the world of letters, and such unimpeachable integrity, as Dr. Henderson of Highbury College, Lon- don. And now with respect to the testimony of Drs. Sancroft and Tillotson. I asserted, on the authority of Dr. Calamy, that these digni- * See a letter in the Derry Sentinel of October, 1838, by the Rev. Henry Allen, vicar ol St. Mary le Wigford, Lincoln, chaplain to the Sussex county gaol, honorary vice-presiilent of the Instit. I)' Afrique, Paris, (of which the Due Doudeauville is president,) and — late curate of Moville, barony oi Inishowen, couuty Douegall. taries had expressed dislike of this service. You tell us that the story is altogether apocry- phal, for that the sole evidence Dr. Calamy could give for it, was, that he " found it in the hand-writing of a Mr. Stancliffe, who wrote it in the margin of a copy of his (Dr. C.'s) abridg- ment." Allow me to quote the whole passage for you from Dr. Calamy, for I find that you have suppressed (could you not have given one instance of fair dealing ere you closed?) the very sentence which bears against you, and confirms the truth of what I alleged. After mentioning that Hoadly and others questioned the fact, not having the effrontery altogether to deny it, Dr. C. says — " Therefore to satisfy them I shall now tell them, that I have it un- der the hand of Mr. Stancliffe, who wrote that passage (among many other things of his own knowledge) in the margin of page 519 of my abridgment; And I suppose none that kneiv him and knew his freedom with Dr. Tillotson will demur upon crediting the relation." * I trust, sir, that you will henceforth no longer de- mur in crediting this relation. And now, a word or two in conclusion,f and I have done. I doubt not that many, in glan- cing over the topics contained in this letter, will be disposed to think that the tone in which they are discussed is unusually and unneces- sarily severe. Why, it may be said, condemn so harshly, errors which connect themselves merely Avith a church's discipline or worship, and which are consequently of comparatively little importance ? I would ask — is there any part of that testimony which Christ hath deli- vered in his word, for which it is not the duty of his people " earnestly to contend" ? It is the cant of the present day that Christians * See Def. of Mod . Non-conf . part ii, p. 219. See also Baxter's Life and Times, vol. i, pp. 225, 226. + It is perhaps hardly necessary to state here that there are a variety of nthtr errors of a very grave kind, disfiguring the ritual of the English church. Thesethe limits assigned ns in the present work forbid us to do more than name. The very naming of them however may be useful. Among the more piominent of them may be specified, the unscriptural rite of confirmation; — the multiplying of kola-days alter the fashion of the Church of Rome; — the form for the visitation of the sick ; — the gross superstition of bowing ut the name of Jesus, as if ]t were mote holy than any othername of Deity ; — and the most unwarrantable appointment of the church re- specting the reading of the Apocrypha. With respect to this last practice, the Book of Common-pr.iyer. after mentioning the order in which the psalter is appointed to be read, presciibes the course of both the canoniral and apocryphal lessons under this one general title, "The order how the rest of the holy Scripture is appoint- ed to be read." What must be the effect of such lan- guage as this? Must not its inevitable tendency be to delude the minds of the people, and induce them to re- gard the absurd legends of superstition as of equal au- thority with the testimony of God in his word? — With regard to the whole ot these " arrangements " just spe- cified, as well as those others which have been tormally and fully discussed in the text of this volume, it need hardly be said that they have been all a thousand times denounced by presbyterian disputants, and that the ar- guments which they have brought against them have never been repelled. Until these ''rites and ceremonies" shall have been "utterly abolished,'' the English estab- lishment can claim only the character of a. half-reformed church ; and all who desire to maintain a "conscience void of offence," and to recognise as paramount the au- thority of the Word, must "keep themselves" separate from her communion. BURIAL SERVICE. 269 should be careful to merge all differences on minor points. Who shall show that those are minor points that concern the keeping " pure, and entire" the worship of the living God? That is not genuine but false liberality which displays itself in indifference to any of the claims of truth, or in conniving at the existence of any error in the church. It may be conceived, besides, by some, that the exposure which I have been compelled to make of yourself, personally, though in a great measure deserved, has been, withal, too un- sparing. I am not conscious of having given expression, in the preceding pages, to a single sentiment that is not true, and I am not aware that any apology or justification is required for speaking the truth with "boldness," and at times, if need be, with severity. I conceive that the present occasion is, on many accounts, one in which both these qualities are especi- ally and imperatively required. — Youhave now received a lesson from the hands of presbyte- rian ministers. " For the public, it was neces- sary — on you, I confidently expect, it will not be lost." PAUL KELSO, PHINTEB, BELFAST. N| P |'m| t Mllli h |i° l ° 9 ' Cal SemiM ry-Speer Library 1 1012 01017 2429 [