beams of the sun are many, as branches from trees, and streams from a fountain; whose number, though it seems dispersed by the abundant plenty of them, yet their unity is preserved by the common original of them all.' Apply this plain rule to all sorts of unities mentioned here, and see if the primitive expressions of one Church, one altar, and one Bishop, do not evidently consist with as many Churches, altars, and Bishops, as can be proved to be undeniably derived from one and the same original institutor; the unity of whose divine power and SPIRIT, diffused at first among the chosen twelve, stamps a character of unity upon all who regularly descend from them, and upon every individual who only claims under, and owns his authority from, and his dependance upon, such as they."u

I perceive, Sir, that you have, after Dr. Campbell, translated TOV apTov, the loaf, instead of the bread; but it is beyond my comprehension what you can gain by it. I doubt, whether you can persuade any person in his senses, that one loaf would be sufficient for the many myriads of Christians, who, we are told, in the Acts of the Apostles, continued steadfast in the apostolic breaking of bread. All the bread offered at a thousand different altars, form but one bread-or one loaf, if you will have it so in the same mystical sense, as a thousand different churches in the same diocese, form but one Church.

As a farther proof of your congregational scheme, you tell us, that the Bishop" was to be personally acquainted with all his flock." So said Lord King before you. But, as Slater justly observes, The words of Ignatius have no such affirmation in them, but are only a plain advice to Polycarp to do what the primitive Bishops always did, that is, to keep the names of every member of his Church enrolled in what the ancients called the Matricula of their Church. The occasion of the words imply it to be so. He just before besought Polycarp "not to neglect the widows of the Church;" and immediately after, desires him "not to overlook so much as the men-servants and maid-servants in it;" and in the midst of this (as a means to know the quality, number, and condition of his diocese) advises him to inquire out all by name, that is, to get such a register of their names, that upon occasion of any object of charity proposed to him, of any complaint or application made to him about any within his cure or jurisdiction, or in case of apostacy, or perseverance in time of persecution, or the like; by means of this general matricula, he (as the other Bishops did) might more directly know how the case stood. And, which was more than all this, the names thus entered in this sacred record were personally entitled then to all the public intercessions and spiritual blessings obtained by the eucharistical prayers, oblations, and sacraments of the whole Church; and to have their names blotted out of this,

W

u Original Draught, p. 60. · Εξ ὀνόματος πάντας ζητει. Εp. Polyc. p. 13. w Original Draught, p, 79.

was a constant effect of excommunication, and was dreaded by all that had any true veneration (as these primitive Christians had) for the holy ordinances of the Church.-These were sufficient reasons for that apostolical father to put a Bishop of the Church in mind to be careful of keeping such a necessary matricula as this, and an effectual way for Polycarp to take care of the meanest and poorest members of his diocese; which, the context tells us, was the occasion of Ignatius' using these words. But as to the matter of but one single congregation being then under his care, and that he must personally know them all by name, as one neighbour knows another, I think they no more imply it, than that Augustus Cæsar had but one town to command, and could know every subject he had, when (for many political occasions) he caused them all to be enrolled, and required the state of his empire to be brought in to him: for the censor's work, in such a case as that, was to give in an estimate of the age, children, family, and estates of all the people under him, as Tully gives us an account of it."*

Once more, Sir: You tell us "all marriages were celebrated by the Bishop." But Ignatius intimates nothing like it. He says, "It was not proper that any should marry without the Bishop's consent;" and singular as this may appear to us, it was highly expedient that it should be so in the primitive Church; as otherwise, a Christian might have married a Heathen, which, probably, would have terminated in the apostacy of the former, and particularly if the husband was the Heathen. To prevent this risk, and probably too from that veneration in which Bishops were held in that day, the Bishop's advice was asked, and his license procured for the celebration of the marriage; but there is not the least evidence, that the Bishop was always the officiating minister. Now, all this might be done, says Slater, "in the very city of London or York at this day, if either banns or license were managed with that proper care with which the Church designed they should." But the Church is now in very different circumstances, and therefore we can hardly form a correct judgment upon this point. At any rate, there is no reason to think that the Bishop celebrated all the marriages within his diocese.

I have now, Sir, given, if I do not deceive myself, satisfactory answers to all your objections, and, I think, when compared with the evidence for diocesan episcopacy, they are trifles light as air, and totally unworthy of the least consideration.

You appear to me, Sir, very sensible of the difficulty that attends your scheme of government, from the circumstance of a primitive Bishop having a number of Presbyters under his jurisdiction. Generally, this appears to have been the case; but how to account for this upon a principle of expediency or utility,

x Censores populi ævitates, soboles, familias, pecuniasque censento. Ac de leg. lib. iii. fol. 1. Orig. Draught, p. 79, 80.

You have

all the advocates of parity seem to be quite at a loss. recourse, as some of them had, to the supposition, or probability, that several of them were ruling Elders. But you should first have fully proved by evidence, either from Ignatius himself or some writer or writers contemporary with him or before him, that there ever was any such character in the Christian Church. This you have attempted to do from a text of Scripture of a very ambiguous nature, in the opinion of some very great men, even of your own persuasion. This subject I shall discuss in my next letter, with as much brevity as I possibly can.

LETTER VIII.

REV. SIR:

I SHALL now enter upon the discussion of the question, Whether there were lay Elders in the primitive Church? I do not undertake to examine this point because I think it of consequence to episcopacy. Were I to admit such an order, still the government of the Church might be placed under Diocesans. As Bishops have not the sole power in ecclesiastical affairs; as Presbyters are their counsellors and assistants in the administration of Church discipline, so ruling Elders, even supposing them to have an equal share in the government with preaching Presbyters, would by no means invade the negative power of Bishops. Every congregation in this diocese might have two or three men of that order, to assist the Rector of the church with their advice in matters of discipline, and yet all be subject to the Bishop's supremacy. Episcopacy, then, is not at all affected by the decision of this question.

Why, then, you may ask me, do I give myself any trouble about it?-To wrest from you the pretence that some of the Presbyters, if not all of them, mentioned by Ignatius, were ruling Elders.

My first observation, with respect to this order of Church officers, is, that nine-tenths of the Protestant world are opposed to the notion of such an institution. I know it does not follow logically from this circumstance, that the order is unfounded; but it affords a strong presumption against it. Nor do we find this order in the Roman, Greek, or Coptic Churches. Nay, even Presbyterians are greatly divided upon this subject. Some of the most learned amongst them, and the most strenuous for presbytery, have entirely given it up. Bishop Sage observes,a that "Chamier, Salmasius, Blondel, Ludovicus Capellus, Moyses Amiraldus, and many others, are against it. The whole tribe

a Vind. &c. p. 442,

of the Belgic Remonstrants (keen parity men) are against it in their confession of faith." Mr. Baxter, in his preface to his Five Disputations of Church Government, says expressly, that "as far as he could understand, the greater part, if not three for one of the English Presbyterian ministers, were as far against Lay-Elders as any Prelatists of them all." He confesses himself to be one, and he cites Mr. Vines for another. Now, Sir, if almost the whole Christian world may be marshalled against you, and even a great part of your own persuasion, and they as learned, at least, as those who are advocates for LayElders, I cannot but think and say, that you ought not to have been so positive upon this point. It will strike every candid mind at once, that there can be but little said in favour of an order of men, when almost the whole Christian world condemn it, and will not admit it into their Churches. This consideration, you will, I presume, duly appreciate; not considering it as a logical argument, but as argumentum ad verecundiam, and as affording a very strong presumption against you.

The text of Scripture which you have quoted in favour of Lay-Elders, is, to say the very least of it, quite ambiguous. Let us examine it. Let the Elders that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour; especially they that labour in the word and doctrine. Now, it certainly does no violence to the words, or to the construction of the sentence, or to any other part of the Scripture, to interpret this passage thus: Let the PRESBYTERS that rule well, be accounted worthy of double honour; especially if they labour much in preaching the word and propagating sound doctrine.' There is evidently no necessity upon any ground, or principle whatever, to extract from this passage the double order of preaching and ruling Elders. Neither the words, nor the context require it. Is it not, then, unjustifiable to found an order of men upon a text of Scripture so completely ambiguous? What would you not say against Episcopalians, were they to found the order of Bishops upon such uncertainty? I declare, that I should be ashamed to say or write one word in favour of it. No, Sir; if I cannot give ten times the evidence from the holy Scriptures, in favour of Bishops, that you can in favour of Lay-Elders, I will then acknowledge, that our cause rests entirely upon the testimonies of the primitive writers. This, indeed, I deem proof quite sufficient; and if you can give me the same proof for Lay-Elders, in the first three centuries, I will then acknowledge them, notwithstanding the ambiguity of this text, to be of apostolical institution. For I subscribe freely to the assertion of Vincentius Lirinensis, that whatever has been believed" always and every where, and by all, ought to be held fast; for that is truly catholic."

I find, Sir, by consulting Dr. Campbell's Ecclesiastical Lectures, that he considers the text in question, altogether insufficient to support the institution of Lay-Elders. He says, that

b

the word especially " is not intended to indicate a different office, but to distinguish from others those who assiduously apply themselves to the most important as well as the most difficult part of their office, public teaching; that the distinction intended, is, therefore, not official, but personal; that it does not relate to a difference in the powers conferred, but solely to a difference in their application. It is not to the persons who have the charge, but to those who labour in it. And to this exposition, as far the more natural, I entirely agree." Indeed, it is altogether inadmissible, that two officers, so essentially different, should invariably be confounded under one common name. And it is a most extraordinary instance of attachment to a hypothesis, that you, who make a community of names an argument in favour of parity, (which, by the way, is a mere fallacy, as I shall show hereafter,) should insist, that two essentially different officers are designated by the same title. A capacity for teaching appears to be essential to the character of an Elder. St. Paul tells Timothy and Titus, that Elders must be apt to teach, able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers; and we never once in the Scriptures find the epithets ruling and preaching given to Elders, by way of distinction. I know that names are not always to be depended upon; but in such cases, the thing signified must be characterized, or we shall remain in the dark. That, in the instance before us, such distinctive characters are given to Elders, as to make it clear or in any degree probable, that some preach and some rule, cannot, in the opinion of the generality of divines, ever be made out.

But, although the mere construction of the sentence will not enable us to establish our sense of it, yet, if we attend to the meaning of one word in it, and to the sentence following, I think we shall be able to decide the point. The word I mean, is honour. What idea are we to attach to this word? The next words show: For it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Here it is evident, that the word honour means maintenance. Then the passage, according to your interpretation, will run thus: Let the Lay-Elders who rule well, be accounted worthy of double maintenance, especially the Elders that are laborious in preaching as well as ruling. Here, then, it seems, both kinds of Elders are to have an ample maintenance; there is the same Scriptural ground for maintaining the one, as for maintaining the other. Now, Sir, what is there in the employment of a ruling Elder, who now and then meets his Bishop in Presbytery, perhaps once a month, to regulate matters of discipline, or to "set in order the things that may be wanting," to entitle him to a maintenance? It is obvious to every reflecting mind, that the ministers of the word and sacraments, who devote all their time to their profession, and, therefore, cannot at the same time, be employed in secular callings, ought to have a liberal support. But, to put a ruling Elder, in this respect,