bytery of Ignatius there were no ruling Elders, the Presbyters were of his own diocese, and the Bishop was not voted into the chair. Is it not then ridiculous to say, that the Bishop of Tertullian and Ignatius was the moderator of such a Presbytery as yours?

Further: Is not the moderator of your Presbytery always a Bishop? And is not a Bishop always the moderator? Are not then the elected Bishop and the moderator convertible terms? Can you not apply either term to the chairman? And does not this imply convertibility?

But it was not against the convertibility of the terms that the ridicule was pointed; for there is nothing ridiculous in that; but in the idea of Ignatius' Bishop being the moderator of such a Presbytery as yours. And if that be not ridiculous, the comparison of two totally different things, to prove that they are alike, is not ridiculous.

If this subject needs any further illustration, and the ridicule any farther point, we may be furnished with it by taking the case which you mention, viz. the number of congregations in the city of Edinburgh; you say there are twenty. Now, I ask, who is the Bishop of those congregations? Is the pastor of any particular congregation the Bishop over all the rest? You will not say he is. But Ignatius' Bishop, whatever number of congregations were in the city, presided over both them and their pastors. This you cannot deny; because the epistles are full of it. The city of Edinburgh, then, affords no example of a primitive diocese.

Again: Is each pastor holding a Church session, the Bishop of whom Ignatius speaks? Certainly not; for such a pastor has no preaching Presbyters under him; but if he had an assistant, he would be co-pastor, with equal powers, and under no obligation to be obedient to him. They would also take the moderator's chair alternately, and the senior pastor would not always be the moderator ex-officio. But Ignatius' Bishop was the moderator ex-officio, and consequently, for life. Besides, upon this plan, every other pastor would be a Bishop, and then we should have as many Bishops as pastors, in direct opposition to the Ignatian epistles, which always speak of one Bishop to a city, with his subject Presbyters and Deacons,

Let us go farther, and consider all the pastors of Edinburgh met in Presbytery. As no one of them is Bishop over the rest, there can be no ex-officio inoderator. One of them is chosen, for how long a time I do not know, nor is it of any consequence. But the Bishop of Ignatius was the ex-officio moderator; and the Presbyters were to be obedient to him in spiritual things, whether in or out of the Presbytery. They were his counsellors, according to Ignatius; and not being his equals, he was not bound by their advice, though, no doubt, in most cases he would take it. He had a negative upon their decisions; for the holy martyr says, over and over again, "Let all be subject to the Bishop,"

The constitution of the Church then, in Edinburgh, is at utter variance with the primitive Church in the time of Ignatius.

Had I not, then, field enough for pouring ridicule on the notion of Tertullian's high Priest and Ignatius' Bishop being the moderator of such a Presbytery as yours?

I cannot but flatter myself that I have now laid this matter to rest, and that we shall hear no more of that ridiculous paradox, that the epistles of Ignatius are presbyterian. And what a specimen does this afford of your hardihood? And how careful ought your readers to be not to receive your representations with confidence, when several of the ablest and most learned Presby terians think it a most hopeless business to attempt the reconciliation of Ignatius with the doctrine of parity?

Having now said enough upon this point, I shall close my testimony of the fathers with a few observations upon what you say relating to the testimonies of St. Jerome.

It is a curious circumstance, and something which looks very like inconsistency, for a man who says there is no dependence to be placed on the fathers of the third and fourth century, to have recourse to one of them who lived about three hundred years from the apostolic age, because he thinks he sees something in the writings of that father favourable to his side of the question. All the fathers that we produce, although they lived from one to two hundred and fifty years earlier, are nothing when compared with Jerome. He may also say what he pleases on our side of the question, and it goes for nothing; but if he drops a single expression that may be construed in favour of parity, it is caught with avidity, and Jerome, pro hac vice, [for that time] is all in all. Is not this very inconsistent ?

In my next I will take a short view of Jerome,

REV. SIR:

LETTER V.

WHAT does Jerome say?-That Bishops and Presbyters were the same under the Apostles-that before there were, by the devil's influence, parties in religion, the Churches were governed by the common council of Presbyters. This he proves from Scripture. He also says, that afterwards the practice was introduced of placing one of the Presbyters above the rest, as a remedy against schism. He further says, that this practice was brought in "paulatim," by little and little. He asserts likewise, that Bishops are above Presbyters, more by the custom of the Church than by the appointment of CHRIST. And finally, he asserts, that this change owed its origin to the decay of religion, and especially to the ambition of ministers. It commenced,

"when every one began to think that those whom he baptized were rather his than CHRIST's." This is the substance of what you produce from Jerome; and then you say, 'I appeal to your candour, my brethren, whether any thing can be plainer or more decisive than this language. I appeal to your candour, whether the man who is capable of saying that these are obscure and doubtful passages can be safely trusted, either as a discerning man, or an impartial judge.

Now, Sir, let us calmly examine this point.

1. Jerome says, "that Bishops and Presbyters were the same under the Apostles." This I grant. But does it follow, that there was no officer superior to this order? As a logician, you certainly will not say it does. Well then, who was the superior officer? I answer, an Apostle. This, if I mistake not, I shall fully prove; and I shall do it in the words of the author of An original Draught, &c.

"The Scriptures," says he, "teach us, that when the Apostles had founded Churches they ordained Elders for them; entrusted those Elders to administer the word and sacraments amongst them, or (to use St. Paul's words to the Elders of Miletus) to take care to themselves and all the flock over which the HOLY GHOST (by orders and commission from the Apostle's hands to be sure) had made them overseers, (which, in our translation, is rendered bishops,) and to feed the Church of God, as good shepherds ought to do. The titles, doubtless, suited with the charge and ministry they were trusted with; and as they were ecclesiastical officers, and commonly not novices in years besides, they were as properly called Presbyters of the Church too; and, accordingly, we find both these terms indefinitely applied to them then. Yet all this while, nothing is plainer in Scripture, than that the Apostles reserved to themselves the prerogative of a ruling power over them; kept a rod of discipline in their own hands; censured such as deserved it; delivered unto Satan the disorderly amongst them: that they excommunicated their members; and expected whole Churches to be obedient to them in all things: in short, had the sovereign care of all the Churches in their own hands; moreover, all the Elders we read of,f who were ordained in any Church, had the Apostle's hands laid upon them. This great prerogative of power then (before Timothy's and Titus's special commission) the Apostles retained still; and no specious titles of Presidents, Governors, Bishops, Pastors, or the like, attributed to the Presbyters or Elders under them in the New Testament, lessened it in the least, or brought it into question: their superior character amongst them was owned by all. So that, during their lives or personal government over them, these titles might safely and properly enough

a Continuation, Letter V. p. 177, 178, [p. 328, 329, 2d ed.]

b 1 Cor. iv, 21. c 1 Cor. v. 3, d 1 Tim. i. 20. e 2 Cor. ii. 9. f 2 Cor. xi. 28.

be promiscuously used for any of their subordinate ministers, whereof they ordained many in particular Churches."

This is a correct and scriptural account of the superior order of the Apostles; and, therefore, by necessary consequence, there were three orders in the Church during the time of the Apostles, viz. Apostles, Presbyters, sometimes called Bishops, and Deacons. Jerome knew all this perfectly well; and, therefore, he could not mean that there were but two orders in the Church; nor, indeed, does he give any hint of the kind.

What does Jerome say next? That before there were, by the devil's influence, parties in religion, the Churches were governed by the common council of Fresbyters.' Here Jerome must mean one of three things; either that the Presbyters governed the Churches independently of the Apostles, or in conjunction with them, with equal powers, cr in subordination to them. He could not mean either of the two first; for then he would contradict the Scriptures flatly; and we certainly ought not to lay that to his charge, unless his words were so express that there would be no possibility of avoiding it; and, in that case, he would not be worth minding. He must then mean, that the Presbyters governed their respective Churches in subordination to the Apostles; and that secures the apostolical pre-eminence.

Jerome says also, ‘Before there were, by the instigation of the devil, parties in religion, and it was said among the people, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common councils of Presbyters,' under the control of the Apostles, as has been shown above. Afterwards, says Jerome, after this distraction at Corinth, to prevent the seeds of schism, one of the Presbyters was set over the rest. Now, as Jerome tells us, that the object of placing one of the Presbyters above the rest was to prevent schism, surely, if we allow him to have possessed common sense, it cannot be supposed that he meant to assert, that the remedy was not applied till two or three hundred years after the disease began. Long before that period the Church might have been torn to atoms by schism. And what shameful disregard to the interests of the Church would the Apostles have discovered, if, when they had a remedy in their hands, they did not apply it, but left it to after ages to apply it or not? This is such an account of the Apostles as would have indelibly marked their characters with folly.

From these observations, which to me appear highly reasonable, and perfectly conclusive, the change which Jerome speaks of, must have taken place (supposing him to be right with respect to a change at all) soon after the schism at Corinth. And then the institution of episcopacy is founded on apostolic authority.

But what shall we say to Jerome's assertion, that fixed Bishops, as a superior order of clergy, were introduced by 'little and

g SLATER'S Original Draught, p. 208.

little? I say, this is perfectly consistent with the notion of the highest Episcopalian in the world. As the labours of the Apostles increased, and it became impracticable for them to superintend the numerous Churches which they planted, or as the time of their departure drew near, they gradually placed men over the Churches with the same majority of power which they themselves had exercised.

66

66

This point is also well illustrated by the author of the Original Draught, &c. Before," says he, "the Apostles died, or when Providence removed them from a personal visitation of their several Churches in this or the other province, we read in the earliest records of the Church, that they ordained many single persons (taken notice of without any fellow Presbyters besides) over large cities and Churches, as (according to Tertullian) St. John placed Polycarp in the Church of Smyrna, and St. Peter ordained Clemens in the Church of Rome; and Tertullian adds, that the rest of the Churches could prove their Bishops to be derived from the Apostles in the same manner; and calls those episcopal sees the Apostles' chairs; as Irenæus also tells us that the Apostles delivered the Church to those single Bishops, and their locus magisterii," or place of government, with them; and the Scripture tells us plainly enough, that Timothy was ordained such a singular governor for Ephesus, where there were many Presbyters before, and Titus for Crete; for it is plain they had a special commission to ordain Elders (1 Tim. iii. 15, 2 Tim. ii., 2 Titus i. 5) to rebuke and censure them as well as others, (1 Tim. v. 19,) and that with all authority (Tit. ii. 15;) to judge of doctrine and reject heretics; in a word, to set in order the things which were wanting (Tit. i. 5), the very claim of Apostolical power, in St. Paul's express words for it (1 Cor. xi. 34;) and all this so personal a charge, that the Apostle conjured Timothy (and no others with him) before GOD and the LORD JESUS CHRIST, and the elect angels, that he observed these things without partiality (1 Tim. v. 21 ;) and as a special reason for his investing him with all this fulness of power now, and for enjoining him so strictly to watch and make a full proof of this his ministry, he concludes thus, 'For I am ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand;' as if he had further said, And now this former care of mine must be yours."

""Tis manifest, I think, from hence, that these singular Presidents of the several Churches had sundry parts of the Apostles' reserved sovereign power conferred upon them, never imparted to Presbyters of any denomination before, as far as Scripture and primitive antiquity can inform us. These consecrated Presidents then take possession of the Churches assigned to them, either by the Apostle's personal induction of them (as the

h Rom. xv. 23.

į See Bishop PEARSON's proof of the time when Timothy was left at Ephesus