REV. SIR:

LETTER XIX.

YOUR manner of accounting for the silence of the primitive writers with respect to a revolution in the government of the Christian Church, is as follows: 'Nor is it wonderful that we find so little said concerning those usurpations in the early records of antiquity. There was probably but little written on the subject; since those who were most ambitious to shine as writers, were most likely to be forward in making unscriptural claims themselves; and, of course, would be little disposed to record their own shame. It is likewise probable, that the little that was written on such a subject would be lost; because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expected that writings so hostile to the ambition and vices of the clergy would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them. And when to these circumstances we add, that literature, after the fourth century, was chiefly in the hands of ecclesiastics; that many important works written in the three first centuries, are known to be lost; and that of the few which remain, some are acknowledged on all hands to have been grossly corrupted, and radically mutilated, we cannot wonder that so little in explanation of the various steps of clerical usurpation has reached our times.'a

It seems, then, from this account, that we are not to look for any records of this wonderful usurpation; because those who were the most capable of writing, would be the very men who would most probably have usurped episcopal pre-eminence; and they would not, you think, record their own shame. But were there none who were capable of writing, but the comparatively small number of usurping Bishops? Was the eloquent Tertullian one of the usurpers? Has not he left various writings? Has he given any hint about this anti-christian usurpation? Would he have 'recorded his own shame' by so doing? Nay, Sir, has not this Presbyter, who had every motive to brand with infamy these usurpers, declared in the most explicit terms, that all spiritual power is derived from episcopal ordination? That neither Presbyter nor Deacon has a right to baptize without the Bishop's authority? Does not he challenge the heretics to produce a list of their Bishops from the Apostles, as the Catholics could? What could have induced Tertullian to be silent with respect to this usurpation, if it had ever existed? Or rather, what could have induced him to assert such a shameless falsehood, as that episcopacy was of apostolical institution, if it was not a notorious fact? What also could have induced the learned

a Page 302.

Clemens of Alexandria to be silent upon this point? Was he one of the usurping Bishops? Would he have 'recorded his own shame' by lifting up his voice against the usurpation? Or rather, would he not have been highly culpable, if he had been silent? But we hear no remonstrance from him. On the contrary, we find him declaring that the Apostles left three orders in the Church-Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. We have the same testimony from the profoundly learned Origen. He also was but a Presbyter; and therefore, one of the sufferers under this unchristian domination. He had, too, a peculiar motive for unmasking the imposition. He conceived himself to have been ill treated by his Bishop. Yet, irritated as he was, he declares episcopacy to be of divine appointment. Did he not know how the matter was? Was he an idiot, or a knave? Was he afraid to tell the truth, or had he any motive for telling a lie? Surely, Sir, we have got to a strange pass, when such monstrous fictions are imposed upon mankind!

But why are the Christian Bishops to be excluded from bearing their testimony to episcopacy? Oh! 'they were the usurpers, and of course could not record their own shame.' Was Ignatius a usurper? Does the man who had been forty years Bishop of Antioch, who had been ordained to that office by apostolic imposition of hands, and who encountered for the sake of CHRIST, death in one of its most horrible forms, deserve that character? Did he, virtuous and pious as he was, go out of the world with a lie in his mouth? Did this martyr, who declares over and over again, that the office which he bore was of divine institution, 'record his own shame? Was Polycarp, the venerable and pious Bishop of Smyrna, one of those usurping Prelates? He must have had a principal hand in the business, if Blondel and the Westminster divines have guessed right; for he lived at the very time when, they say, this flagitious revolution was effected. Was this distinguished character, who recommended in strong terms the epistles of Ignatius, in which the divine right of episcopacy is repeatedly asserted, and who, from recommending them, must have been of the same opinion; was, I say, Polycarp one of those 'usurpers'? Did he go out of the world, triumphing in the flames, and exulting in the hope of happiness, when he had upon his soul the guilt of destroying that sacred regimen which CHRIST left in his Church? Was he tenacious of the time of keeping Easter, which was of no material consequence; but regardless of the constitution of the Christian Church? If these questions will admit of an answer in the affirmative, then the nature of man is totally different from what it was in the early ages of the Church. At that time, great events were not recorded, while the most insignificant were. At that time, revolutions were effected by simple volition; but ever since, they have required vigorous action. Then the government of the Church was subverted without the least notice, noise, or contention; but now it would excite the great

In that age,

est commotions, and most virulent animosities. men loved misery; but now they abhor it. Then art and intrigue possessed magical power, and were irresistible; now, their influence may be effectually counteracted. In short, a total revolution has taken place in the human mind, as well as in the Church. Its principles, its motives, its feelings, its powers, have undergone a complete change.

Surely, Sir, I need not go on naming other distinguished lights of the Church in the second and third centuries. I need not say any thing about Hegesippus, and Justin Martyr, and Melito, and Polycrates, and Theophilus, and Irenæus, and several others in the second century; and Miltiades, and Minutius Felix, and Alexander of Jerusalem, and Cyprian, and Cornelius, and many more in the third century; several of whom left writings behind them, in which there is not a tittle about a change of government; and all of them were men of distinguished piety, eminent virtue, and respectable talents. To talk of these men being either usurpers themselves, or encouragers of usurpation, either by word or deed, in others; or of even keeping silence during its progress, or after it took place, is such an outrage committed upon probability, that it is inconceivable to me how any one can possibly be guilty of it. Yet such is the fact, that you are guilty of it, whether it can be accounted for, or not.

6

You go on, Sir, in the same unvaried strain of conjecture and fancy. You think it probable that the little that was written on such a subject, [a change of government,] would be lost; because the art of printing being unknown, and the trouble and expense of multiplying copies being only incurred for the sake of possessing interesting and popular works, it was not to be expected that writings so hostile to the ambitious views of the clergy, would be much read, if it were possible to suppress them.' It seems, then, that you know, or at least think it probable, that in several works which are lost, there was some account of this revolution. Was there ever such an argument as this from a man who wishes to be deemed a reasoner! At this rate, what is to become of the best attested facts? A sceptic has nothing to do but to say, it is probable that the little that was written' in opposition to those facts, is lost; but if we had those writings, it is very likely that we should have a very different story. Or if the art of printing had been known, it is very probable that those books which contradict the alleged facts, would have been so much multiplied as to preclude their total destruction, and then those pretended facts would appear gross impositions. What a sweeping way of reasoning is this! Might not the Deists, at this rate, argue against the Gospel history, that 'perhaps there were accounts published concerning our blessed SAVIOUR by good hands, directly contrary to those in the Gospels now extant, although they are entirely lost, as many books of the adversaries of Christianity are known to be? And how easily may they argue against the reasonableness of our receiv

ing the books of the New Testament upon the testimony of the fathers, that we know not what they all thought; that many of them are lost, which, perhaps, contradicted the testimony of the remaining part? Would it not be a sufficient reply to such persons, that "nothing can be more unreasonable than to reject the concurrent testimony of all, or most of the writers extant, upon so groundless a supposition as this? Nay, that it is more reasonable to think, that the writers not extant, bore witness to the same things, and that if they believe any thing upon the testimony of past writers, they ought in reason to believe this, because the same surmises lie against all historians ?”b

I have now, I flatter myself, proved the extreme weakness of your reasoning to show the possibility and probability of a change from presbytery to episcopacy. And if the human mind cannot act without motives; if no motive can possibly be assigned consistently with the universally acknowledged principles of human actions; if a change which deprived the Presbyters of the Church of their most sacred rights, was in the highest degree calculated to produce the most violent opposition, and the most rancorous enmity-if, notwithstanding, no opposition was excited, and not a hint given by any writer of antiquity that such a revolution took place; but, on the contrary, if every author who mentions the subject, founds episcopacy upon apostolical institution; then the conclusion is irresistible, that no change took place; but that from the beginning of the Christian Church there was no such thing as parity, but a real distinction of office and character.

Notwithstanding the reasoning upon which I rest this conclusion is drawn from the nature of the human mind, from the well known circumstances of the Church in the second and third centuries, from the universally acknowledged virtue and piety of those who must necessarily have been concerned in this flagitious usurpation, and from the total silence of all antiquity upon the subject; yet, you venture to assert that a change was not only practicable and probable, but that it actually took place. Well, Sir, let us now try this point.

And here I would observe, that all you have said to prove that a change actually took place, is nothing more than you had said in different parts of your book; to which I have given a very particular answer. But as you have, by way of recapitulation, again brought to view the same points, it may be expedient for me to repeat, in as concise a manner as possible, my replies.

1. You urge the indiscriminate use of Scripture titles. This has been fully answered over and over again. It has been evinced, that the community of names amounts to nothing at all. There were, during the lives of the Apostles, three orders in the Church-Apostles, Bishops or Presbyters, and Deacons ; and in the next age, the successors of the Apostles were styled Bishops,

b HOADLEY'S Brief Defence of Episcopal Ordination, p. 18, 19.

who had under them, Presbyters and Deacons. This is generally the language used by the writers of all ages succeeding the first; and whenever the fathers style a Bishop a Presbyter, which is very seldom, it is done with propriety, as the greater implies the less. "It is not necessary to repeat the proof of these positions. They will, therefore, be assumed as established points." But when you tell us, that, 'in the writings of the third century, we begin to perceive a style of expression indicating a commencement of a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters,' you assert what has been abundantly proved to be erroneous; for I have shown that the writers of the second century, particularly Ignatius, used the same distinctive language; and that arose not from 'a change in the nature of the office,' but from the fact, that the Bishops succeeded to the Apostolical pre-eminence; and that, therefore, there was no alteration in the regimen of the Church, as Presbyterian writers gratuitously assert. 2. You repeat your declaration, that Jerome, Hilary, and Chrysostom, writers of the fourth century, maintain that a change took place after the apostolic age; but I have shown from their express assertions, that they held episcopacy to be an apostolic institution; and their testimonies are so pointed and unquestionable, and so formally stated, that they must silence even prejudice and sophistry themselves.. Were not these learned men as likely to understand the subject on which they wrote as any of the present day? Is it credible that they should be totally deceived concerning a fact, which, if it did not fall under their own observation, must have been personally witnessed by their predecessors? It is not credible. Yet unless we suppose these writers to have been either deceived or dishonest,' the episcopal form of Church government was of apostolic and divine institution.

3. You observe that Prelacy was first embraced in populous and wealthy cities.' This is perfectly correct. It was first embraced in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, &c.; and, from these seats of primitive purity, it spread into the neigh bouring countries, and became general.

You next observe, that Hilary and others declare that many of the African Presbyters continued to exercise the ordaining power until the middle of the fourth century.' I have fully proved, in my second letter, that Hilary says no such thing. The word he uses is consignant, not ordinant. Consigno was generally applied to baptism, sometimes to confirmation, but perhaps never to ordination. Who the others are that bear this testimony, you have not told us, and, therefore, it is needless to inquire. If you, Sir, have discovered any thing of this kind, it is more than any of your predecessors discovered. The secret was certainly worth disclosing.

Next, Sir, you inform us, that the Churches in Scotland

c Page 305.