and as Tertullian and Clemens were his contemporaries, I have an undoubted right, whenever I meet in their writings with an enumeration of the offices of the Church, to consider them as bearing testimony to three distinct grades or orders. For it is utterly inconsistent with reason, and with every rule by which the judgment ought to be governed, to suppose that Bishops (when it is once settled by incontrovertible evidence, that they were raised to the "top of the priesthood," by a distinct ordination from that of a Presbyter) were not superior in power and dignity for that would be to give them nothing which they did not possess before.

f

In my first volume, I quoted Tertullian saying, "The chief Priest, who is the Bishop, has the right of giving baptism, and after him, the Presbyters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's authority." Here the three orders are enumerated, and therefore, according to the principles of the third century, which have been proved to be prelatical in the full sense of the word, Bishops were an order superior to Presbyters and Deacons. Tertullian also calls the Bishop the chief priest; consequently, the Presbyters or Priests were inferior to him, unless it can be proved that chief means the same thing as equal. And he further says, that the power to administer baptism, and consequently the other sacrament, is derived from him. Here then it is evident, that the right of ministering in holy things, is entirely owing to authority derived from the Bishop; or, in other words, that no ordination could be performed but by him. Thus the Bishop's authority is affirmed by Tertullian, in perfect conformity with Cyprian and his contemporary Bishops.

In answer to this testimony from Tertullian, you observed, 'The highest priest might have been the standing Moderator of the presbytery.' To this I replied,' might have been! Is this reasoning? Especially after I had proved to a certainty, that in the age of Tertullian, diocesan episcopacy was universally the government of the Church, and that Bishops were raised to the "top of the priesthood" by a new ordination. I further asked-"Has a Moderator among you the supreme power of the keys? Do the members of your presbytery derive the power of administering the sacraments from him? Can they not administer them but in subordination to him? How prepos terous it is to suppose that your Moderator, even if he were to hold his office for life, would answer to Tertulliar's 'High Priest' or Bishop? All the essential traits of character in the latter, are totally wanting in the former.”

Tertullian also traces these Bishops, or high Priests,' up to the Apostles. "In this manner," says he, the apostolic Churches bring down their registers; as the Church of Smyrna from Polycarp, placed there by John; the Church of Rome from Clement, ordained by Peter; and so do the rest prove their apostolic origin by exhibiting those who were constituted their f Page 142. [Vol. I. p. 69.]

Bishops by the Apostles." Here Tertullian's High Priests, who authorized Presbyters to administer the sacraments, and who were, therefore, necessarily their superiors, are declared by him to be of apostolic origin; and yet you deny that any father ascribes prelacy to apostolic institution. Pray, Sir, was not the 'high Priest' a Prelate? Is not, for the same reason, the High Priest of the Catholic Church a Prelate? Does not Tertullian ascribe to him powers superior to those of a Presbyter? Have I not fully proved from Cyprian and others, that, in their time, this High Priest had a distinct ordination; that he alone had the right of confirmation and ordination; that he was supreme in the government of the Church; and that such Bishops or High Priests formed a distinct college, and had definitive voices in all councils? And can any marks of prelacy be stronger than these? Where can you find a Prelate, if one endowed with these powers is not entitled to the character? Is Tertullian to be considered as not knowing any thing of the government of the Church in his own time? Or did this full grown prelacy spring up eight or ten years after Tertullian's death? If so, what shameless wretches were Cyprian and all the Bishops of his time, to assert that this high-toned prelacy was of apostolic institution? And what idiots were the thousands under their government to believe them, when for years they had seen a totally different regimen? Is it possible for any man of common sense to adopt this?

You indeed object that this notion of a single succession is not to be depended upon, because there are some difficulties in the catalogues. But this is not true with respect to the catalogues of Jerusalem and Alexandria. It is only with respect to those of Rome and Antioch that there is a difficulty, but which Dr. Hammond-has, I think, fairly settled. But let it be otherwise, if you please. Then I ask, are there not also difficulties in the catalogues of the Jewish High Priests? But who ever, on that account, supposed that there was an interruption of that office in the Jewish Church? Are there not difficulties likewise in the catalogues of the Archontes of the Athenians? Yet nobody ever doubted that there was a succession of Archontes from Creon.

All

The answer of Charles I. to this objection would, I think, to an unprejudiced mind, prove completely satisfactory. human histories," says he, 66 are subject to such frailties. There are differences in historiographers in reciting the succession of the Babylonian, Persian, and Macedonian Kings, and of the Saxon Kings in England. And we find more inextricable difficulties in the Fasti Consulares, (the catalogues of the Roman Consuls,) notwithstanding their great care in keeping the public records, and the exactness of the Roman histories, than are to be found in the episcopal catalogues, &c. Yet all men believe

g Letters, Vol. I. p. 145. Vol. I. p. 70, 71,]

there were Kings in those countries, and Consuls in Rome in those times. So that the discrediting of the catalogues of Bishops, in respect of some uncertainty and differences, which yet may be fairly reconciled, tendeth rather to the confirmation of the thing itself."h

There is no possible way for you to get rid of the testimony of Tertullian, Cyprian, and all the writers of their age, but by showing that it does not necessarily follow that the Bishop, from the circumstances mentioned, is superior in dignity and power to the Presbyter. But as that would be a palpable absurdity, you will not, I think, very readily undertake it. You must, therefore, for any thing I can see, remain contented to have these testimonies placed against you.

Thus, Sir, by feeling every inch of my way, I 'rush' to the conclusion, that in every part of the third century, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, were distinct orders in the Christian Church. And if so, then the distinction of orders, if it did not take place in the apostolic age, must have taken place in the second century. Let us try this point.

And here, to shorten the business, I will pass over all the testimonies I adduced between the close of the second age and the time of Ignatius, referring my readers to the first volume of my work for what I have quoted during that period.

You persist, in your last publication, to maintain that the epistles of Ignatius do not favour our, but your side of the question. I prefaced my quotations from Ignatius with the following observations-'It is, Sir, to me very unaccountable, that Blondel, Salmasius, and Daille, should have laboured so hard to invalidate these epistles, when they are, if you are right, so clearly on their side of the question. To them they must have appeared in a very different point of light from what they do to you. If they had not been convinced that they were too Episcopal for them to manage, they would have admitted them, and reasoned from them in favour of presbytery. This would have been argumentum ad hominem, which would effectually have shut the mouth of every Episcopalian. But no; they did not choose to try that experiment.'

With this opinion the learned Grotius concurs. I quoted him saying—“ The Epistles of Ignatius, which your son brought out of Italy, pure from all those things which the learned have hitherto suspected [in the larger epistles,] Blondel will not admit, because they afford a clear testimony to the antiquity of episcopacy." And the learned Mosheim acknowledges, although at the expense of consistency, that there would have been no dispute about those epistles, had they been silent on the point of episcopacy.'

This, I acknowledge, is not a logical proof that you are wrong,

h Final Answer, &c. See his Works, p. 641.

i Vol. I. p. 179. [Vol. I. p. 85.]

k Ibid.

and that they are right; but it certainly affords a strong presumption against you. Had these men been Episcopalians, the case would be different: but when they were labouring hard against episcopacy, and yet acknowledge that Ignatius is no friend to parity, it must, I think, be admitted, that it presents a difficulty not very favourable to your judgment. But let us cut the matter short, and appeal to the epistles themselves.

You admit that Ignatius invariably speaks of three sorts of officers in the Christian Church in his time, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. The very enumeration of these officers affords evidence that there was a difference of some sort or other; for if there was no difference, it is impossible to give a reason why they should be distinctly enumerated. All the difference you make, is, that the Bishop was the Rector, or Pastor, and the Presbyters his curates, or assistants. Your words are, 'We have satisfactory proof that there were in the primitive Church, clergymen in full orders, that is, empowered to preach and administer sacraments, who yet had no pastoral charge, but acted the part of assistants or curates to the Pastor, Rector, or Bishop. Now, in what manner could such be distinguished from those who were invested with a pastoral charge, but by calling the one class Bishops, and the other Presbyters? In the Presbyterian Church, we distinguish them in this manner; and in the Church of England, they distinguish them by calling the former Rectors, and the latter Curates. And with just as much reason might some person five hundred years hence, assert that Pastors and assistant Presbyters, or Rectors and Curates, were different orders of clergy in the eighteenth century, as Dr. B. can now insist that Bishops and Presbyters were different orders in the primitive Church. The argument is totally delusive; nor could it have been so often and so gravely repeated, had there not been, on the part of those who have urged it, a miserable deficiency of sounder proof."

Well, Sir! now we know where to find you. Only adhere to this, and the dispute will soon be brought to an end.

Here we have it from under your own hand, that in the time of Ignatius, that is, in the beginning of the second century, a Church consisted of a Bishop, or Pastor, or Rector, with a plurality of assistants or curates; and consequently of a plurality of congregations; and that the title of Bishop was conferred upon the proper pastor to distinguish him from his Presbyters or assistants.

To this I answer, first, Let it be kept in mind that Ignatius says, "without a Bishop, Presbyters, and Deacons, there is no Church named;" and consequently, it was the universal gov

ernment.

And is it really so, that among Presbyterians there can be no Church named, which has not the above plurality of officers?

1 Continuation, p. 153, 154, [p. 314, 2d ed.]

Is that the case with the Church whose pastor you are? Perhaps you will say, Yes; we have Ruling Elders. But Ignatius does not say a word about Ruling Elders, and therefore you have no right to foist them in among his Presbyters. Besides, I will show directly that they were Presbyters who administered the sacraments. But were I even to admit that some of the Presbyters did not minister in holy things, still it would be of no service to you, for I have proved from Scripture alone, that there must have been numerous congregations at Antioch, and consequently numerous preaching Presbyters in that city. Making then every allowance, the plan of government in the church of which you are the pastor, is very different from that of Ignatius.

Further; you have entirely precluded yourself from the benefit of Ruling Elders in the above quotation; for you say that the Presbyters were the assistants of the Bishop, or what is equivalent in the Church of England, Curates to the Rector. But who ever heard of Curates being Ruling Elders?

But perhaps three or four associated churches will come nearer to the Ignatian pattern. For instance, your two churches, which have been lately separated. Before that period, who was the Bishop? Dr. Rodgers, or Dr. M'Knight, or Dr. Miller? Did you, or any body else, ever consider the venerable and pious Dr. Rodgers the Bishop, and yourself and Dr. M'Knight merely his assistants or Curates? Or did the good old gentleman in your church-sessions always take the Moderator's chair ex-officio, as a matter of right? Was he, in short, the standing Moderator? If you cannot answer these questions in the affirmative, and I am persuaded you cannot, then a Presbyterian Bishop, and the Bishop of Ignatius, were very different things.

It seems then that, whether we consider you as the Bishop of a single congregation with or without an assistant, you are not an Ignatian Bishop, who had numerous congregations, and numerous Presbyters under him; or whether we consider you as a minister associated with two or three others, you are not a Bishop of the primitive stamp ; for we find that kind of Bishop was the standing Moderator of the Presbytery, to whom all ranks were to be subject in spiritual matters; who was the principal of unity to a hundred Presbyters and a hundred congregations, if there were so many under him.

Take we another instance—the Church of Jerusalem, the first Christian Church that was formed, and let us see whether presbyterian Church government is consistent with that. I proved from the holy Scriptures that there were many myriads of Christians in that Church. Mr. M'Leod says fifty thousand, and I believe he is not out of the way, unless it be in under-rating; for the expression many myriads fully justifies his calculation. Then there must have been at the very lowest a hundred congregations; for they had no large buildings at that time to meet in. Now all antiquity says that St. James was the Bishop of