ordination; as we have shown St. Cyprian, and all his contemporaries, believed it to be.

Now, Sir, will your Moderator' answer the character of Origen's Bishop? The question, I confess, has much the appearance of an insult offered to your understanding; but your impartiality will, I trust, lay the blame where it ought to be laid; that is, upon yourself. You, no doubt, remember the explanation you give of Tertullian's High Priest. 'He might have been the standing Moderator,' you say. Then Origen's Bishop, and Cyprian's Bishop, ' might have been the standing Moderators!' Then Origen owned subjection to a character, with which, as such, he had not the least connexion; as a Moderator, he and the layman Origen bore not the slightest relation to one another; and yet he was to be subject to this Moderator, and that too by divine ordination. If the absurdity of this does not strike you, I do not know what absurdity will.

Another quotation from Origen which I gave you, is the following. "Besides these (the debts mentioned in the LORD'S prayer) there is a debt peculiar to such as are widows maintained by the Church. And there is a debt peculiar to the Deacons; and another peculiar to Presbyters; but of all these peculiar debts, that which is due by the Bishop is the greatest. It is exacted by the SAVIOUR of the whole Church; and the Bishop must suffer severely for it, if it be not paid.”

Here again, we have a distinct enumeration of officers in the Church in the time of Origen; and, consequently, according to the language and practice of that age, distinct grades, or orders of ministers. Allowing Origen to speak, as every man of sense does, according to the ideas annexed to words in his own time, it necessarily follows, that the Bishop was the superior officer. For it has been abundantly proved, that episcopacy was diocesan in that century; therefore, Origen's Bishop was a diocesan; and being so, he possessed all the superior powers of such a Bishop.

The very gradation of duties also proves a gradation of offices. For I ask, why was the duty of a Deacon less than that of a Presbyter? Surely, it was for no other reason than that he was an inferior officer, And for the very same reason, the duty of a Presbyter was less than that of a Bishop. The Deacon was less responsible than the Presbyter, and the Presbyter less responsible than the Bishop; consequently, the Bishop was the first officer in the Christian Church.

This is in perfect consistence with the language and practice of the third century. But your notion of a 'Moderator' is at utter variance with that language and practice; and when compared with the above quotation, absolutely ridiculous. Need I point it out again? Surely, I need not. The weakest understanding will readily perceive it.

Let it be remembered also, that the Church of Alexandria, to which Origen belonged, was diocesan, as I have fully proved in

my first volume; and then it will be evident that his language was that of a member of a diocesan Church.

These were the only quotations I gave you, referring you to Bishop Pearson's Vindicia for more. I will now add another out of several that I can produce.

Origen, in his Commentary on St. Matthew, says, that the Church was governed by Bishops, not only in his time, but that it had been governed by them for generations; which must reach the times, or nearly the times, of the Apostles. "There is a necessity," says he, "that we should depress the opinion of those who esteem themselves highly, because brought up under parents (poyóvois) or progenitors, who had attained to that dignity in the Church as to sit on the Bishop's throne, or to have the honour of Presbyters or Deacons (to minister) to God's people." Here are distinct offices again; the Deacons subordinate to the Presbyter, the Presbyter to the Bishop, and the Bishop invested with the highest authority, expressed by presiding on the throne.

Will your congregational Bishop, or your Moderator, comport with this description? You may try it if you please; but I shall not give myself the trouble of writing a sentence to evince their inconsistence.

But it seems, that all the proofs which can be given for the establishment of diocesan episcopacy in the third century, you are determined to consider as of no manner of consequence, You say, 'What if Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Hilary, Epiphanius, Augustine, and a dozen more, who lived within the same period, could be brought to attest in the most unequivocal terms that prelacy existed in their time? Does any Presbyterian deny that clerical imparity had begun to appear in the third, and was established in the fourth century?'a Yes, Sir, I know one who has denied a part of this question, and that gentleman is yourself. You say in your eighth letter, 'The whole of that reasoning which confidently deduces the apostolic origin of prelacy, from its acknowledged and general, but by no means universal prevalence in the fourth century, is mere empty declamation."

Here you give prelacy but a partial establishment even in the fourth century; and you have, in effect, denied imparity at all in the third century, by endeavouring to make it appear that St. Cyprian was a congregational Bishop. But let this pass; it is of no great consequence to point out your inconsis

tencies.

You go on to say-' But Dr. B. alledges that several of these writers expressly assert the apostolical institution of prelacy. Now if it were even true that they do make this assertion, it would weigh nothing with me, nor with any other reasonable

a Continuation, p. 189. [p. 336, 2d ed.] b Letters, p. 385. [p. 213, 2d ed.] • Letters, p. 174 et sequent. [p. 116, 117, 2d ed.]

man.' (N. B.) You then give your reason for this chimerical opinion, which I shall consider presently.

Here, you deny that the above named fathers assert the apostolic institution of prelacy, and elsewhere, you positively affirm that they do not. After this, were you alone concerned, I should think it as useless to dispute with you, as with a man who looks at the blazing sun, and says it does not shine.

If any man can read the numerous, express, positive proofs that I have given, that a Bishop in the third century was raised to the "top of the Priesthood" by a new ordination, his ordination to the Presbyterate being_insufficient-that he held the supreme power of the keys, and was the governor of all orders in the Church; and then will read the following testimonies given in my first volume, and yet assert that Cyprian and his contemporaries did not maintain the divine right of episcopacy, I must really think that he has a strange obliquity of thinking, and that he is proof against every degree of evidence from testimony.

Let it be remembered what sort of Bishop Cyprian is proved to have been, and then read as follows. At the opening of the council of Carthage he says, "Our LORD JESUS CHRIST, and he alone, has the power of setting Bishops over the Church, to govern it." He says to Cornelius, that, "If the courage of Bishops be shaken, and they shall yield to the temerity of wicked schismatics, there will then be an end of the episcopal authority, and the sublime and divine power of governing the Church." And in the same epistle, he says, that "CHRIST constitutes, as well as protects Bishops." In his epistle to Florentius Pupianus, he says that, "It is God who makes Bishops ;" and that "it is by the divine appointment a Bishop is set over the Church."d

I also proved, by a number of other testimonies, that it was the general belief of that age, that diocesan episcopacy is of divine origin.

Now, how do you free yourself from the embarrassment, in which these testimonies necessarily involve you? Not by showing that there are no such testimonies-not by showing that they do not imply what I have ascribed to them-not by evincing that congregational episcopacy was the government of the Church in that age, which would effectually render nugatory all that I have said; not by any of these means, but by boldly declaring that you do not value the testimonies of the fathers, nor ought they to be valued by any reasonable man.

You put me in mind, Sir, of what Goldsmith used to say of Dr. Johnson. "If in reasoning, you pin him up in a corner, so that you would think he could not possibly make his escape, he is sure to jump over your head, and run off." You have indeed got out of your straitened situation, but it is by running away from the question. You have got rid of a difficulty, but it is by

d See my fifth letter.

adopting an absurdity. You have deprived the fathers of common sense, but it is at the expense of your own. You have, in short, taken them from us as witnesses to the canon of the Scripture, to the LORD's day, and to any fact which took place before their own time. And what is your reason for all this? It is, it seems, because they were mistaken as to three facts, and therefore they are not to be depended upon for the government of the Church, one or two centuries before their own time. I fear this will deprive us of all history whatsoever.

With those facts I shall begin my next letter.

REV. SIR:

LETTER III.

THE first fact which you mention, as tending to invalidate the testimony of the fathers of the third and fourth centuries, is, that 'within fifty years after the apostolic age, the wine in the LORD's Supper was constantly mixed with water. This mixture, considered at first as a measure of human prudence, soon began to be urged, not only as a matter of importance, but as a divine institution. Irenæus declares it to have been both taught and practised by our SAVIOUR himself. Lib. iv. cap. 57. Čyprian also asserts that the same thing was enjoined by tradition from the LORD, and made a part of the original institution.' You might likewise have added Justin Martyr, who mentions it as the custom of the Church in his time; that is, about thirty years after the death of St. John.a Clemens Alexandrinus also mentions it.b "But no Protestant now believes one or the other!!" Here you most grossly err. The Episcopal Church in Scotland believe it to have been practised by the Apostles, and by the whole primitive Church, and accordingly, invariably used the mixed cup. And the Church of England practised it till the second review of the Liturgy in the reign of Edward VI. at which time, by the influence of some foreign Presbyterians, they laid it aside, to the great regret of many learned and pious divines. And were you, Sir, to examine the evidence for this usage, I do not think you would find it an easy matter to show its insufficiency. As to myself, I can say, that after having considered the question with no small degree of attention, I am perfectly satisfied, that the Paschal cup, which the most learned in Jewish customs say was always mixed with water, was the cup used by our SAVIOUR; and that it was the universal practice in the days of the Apostles, and for ages after. The testimony of Justin Martyr at Rome, of Irenæus at Lyons, of Clemens at Alexb Pæd. lib. ii. c. 2. LIGHTFOOT, Hora Hebraica in 1 Cor. xi. 25. et Matt. p. 298.

a Apol. II. p. 162.

1

andria, of Cyprian at Carthage, and of numerous other subsequent writers, cannot be disregarded without serious consequences. But if it could, you must prove the practice not to have been founded on apostolic tradition, before you can infer any thing favourable to your purpose.

In my first volume, I gave you the rule of Vincentius Lirinensis for determining what are apostolic usages. It is, that such doctrines as we find to have been believed in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful, are derived from apostolic authority. Now try the use of the mixed cup by this rule. The practice was common in the early part of the second century; therefore, it has both antiquity and universality. The Paschal cup was used by our SAVIOUR, as appears from the Scripture, and that cup was mixed with water, as appears from Jewish documents; therefore, the subsequent practice was grounded on the SAVIOUR'S example; and thus we are at the source. If indeed the Church of the following ages had not used the mixed cup, we might consider it, like some other usages, as not designed to be continued. But when we find that it was universally used after our SAVIOUR's example, however unimportant or insignificant, we may consider the circumstance; the usage comes within the rule of Vincentius, and therefore deserves belief. This case then will be of no manner of use to you.

Your second instance, viz. of giving communion to infants in the third century, has not one of the marks of Vincentius' rule. It was not a general practice in that century; but was confined to some Churches in Africa; therefore it wants universality. It cannot be traced to the apostolic age; and therefore it wants antiquity: and consequently it must be rejected from the list of apostolic usages.

But you say, 'Augustine calls it an apostolical tradition.' So he does, for the very reason which you mention-his misconception of John vi. 53. But who ever supposed that Augustine, or any other father, was an infallible interpreter of Scripture You confound two distinct things, the opinions of the fathers, with their testimony to facts. A man may be erroneous in his opinions, and yet very correct in his statement of facts. Augustine does not say that the Church, in all ages and in all places, administered the communion to infants; but supposing it to be a Scripture doctrine, he considered it as obligatory. But he must have known very well, that even in his own time, (the fourth century) numbers differed from him, and that many Churches did not pay any regard to that African custom. His misconception, therefore, of a text of Scripture has nothing to do with the question we are discussing, viz. what weight has the opinion of the whole Christian Church in the third century, that episcopacy had a divine origin? I say it has great weight. You say it has none at all; and to prove it, you quote a partial usage in the third and fourth centuries, founded on a misconcep→ tion. Then the argument stands thus: A few Churches in