goes on, "Theophylact, more clearly repeating the words of St. Chrysostom, pro more suo [according to his custom,] adds this'The name and dignity of these seven was no less, but even the dignity of Presbyters, only for the time they were appointed to dispense the goods of the Church for the good of the faithful people.'" Both those fathers believed that the seven were of the number of the seventy, and that they were Presbyters to whom the care of the common stock was committed for a short time. Whether this opinion is correct or not, it is very evident, that neither of them took this transaction to be an ordination to the office of a Deacon. In what respect then you can derive any advantage from it, is beyond my conception.

It is now evident that you have not given us so much as the words of Chrysostom; and consequently, we are not to look for his meaning from you. You make him say, "In his time, such Deacons as the Apostles ordained, were not in the Church." Whereas he says, that " The ordination of Deacons was not in the Church at that time ;"-that is, when the seven were appointed-" neither the name of Deacon nor Presbyter then appears." When he is allowed to speak for himself, his opinion is very different from that you ascribe to him.

But, Sir, I will not deprive you either of the words you have given us for Chrysostom's, or of the opinion you are pleased to ascribe to him; you can have them both, and welcome. What then? Your inference does not follow. It does not follow that, because ecclesiastical authority gave additional powers to Deacons, when no other order was injured by it, that the order of Bishops could have been introduced, when the whole order of Presbyters would have thereby lost some of their most valuable rights, and, in consequence, have been reduced to a subordinate grade. This would have been a revolution of a momentous nature, of which we should find enough in ecclesiastical history.

I am really ashamed to take up so much of the time of our readers in replying to things which have not the weight of a feather; and vexed to be obliged to waste so much of my own time, when I can employ it to a much better purpose.

Your other quotations are of equal importance with the last; yet I cannot well avoid noticing them. Were I not to do it, I am confident it would be said they are too hard for me.

You quote Basil, saying, "CHRIST says, lovest thou me, Peter, more than these? Feed my sheep. And from thence he gave to all Pastors and Doctors equal power; whereof this is a token, that all of them, as Peter did, bind and loose."

The injunction of CHRIST is, "Feed my sheep." The inference is, "From thence he gave to all Pastors and Doctors equal power" to feed his sheep. And do we not say, that all Pastors have equal power to feed CHRIST's sheep, by preaching his word and administering his sacraments? Have not Presbyters this power as well as Bishops? They surely have. In this respect they are perfectly on a level. The only difference is as VOL. II.-6

"

to the origin of the power; the Presbyter deriving it from the Bishop; the Bishop from the Apostles by succession. The power, when communicated to the Presbyter, is plenary; he has as good a right to preach and administer the sacraments as the Bishop. But this does not affect the Bishop's rod of discipline. And a Presbyter's having a right to preach and administer the sacraments, gives him of course the power of binding and loosing; that is, of repelling unworthy persons from the communion, and of receiving them again when they profess contrition and repentance. The Bishop's superiority in superintending, is not in the least affected; his business in all this, is only to see that these things be done; which necessarily implies that the power of the Presbyter to do them is complete. It is evident, then, that Bishops and Presbyters have equal power of preaching, and of binding and loosing.

You next quote one of the canons of the fourth council of Carthage. "Let the Bishop, when he is in the church and sitting in the presbytery, be placed in a higher seat; but when he is in the house, let him know that he is the colleague of the Presbyters."

My first observation is, that the most learned Presbyterian writers in this controversy acknowledge, that the distinction of orders took place a hundred years before the fourth council of Carthage. I have proved that Blondel, and the whole Provincial Council of Presbyterian Ministers which met in London in the seventeenth century, acknowledge it. They knew of this canon as well as you; but they did not draw from it your fancy, that Bishops and Presbyters were at that time equal.

2. I have proved, beyond the possibility of refutation, that diocesan episcopacy was universally the government of the Church at that time. So numerous, pointed, and decisive are the testimonies adduced, that you have not ventured to meddle with them. In this you have discovered prudence; and I wish I could add that you had discovered fairness, and ingenuousness in citing this canon.

3. I have proved, that in the third century the Bishops formed a distinct college, and this necessarily implies imparity. Blondel acknowledges this." And "Chamier had so just a notion of the true nature of a colleague, that he not only formed the Bishop of Rome's being so frequently and ordinarily called their 'colleague' by other Bishops, into an argument (and a solid one it is) against the Pope's supremacy, but he also affirms, that after the introduction of episcopacy, Presbyters neither were, nor were called colleagues to Bishops, upon this very score, that they had not equal powers with Bishops. And, therefore, (though a Presbyterian) he suspects the wording of the thirty-fifth canon, which requires Bishops, in ordinary conversation, to treat Pres

a Ex quo distincti cleri gradus, diversa Episcoporum et Presbyterorum collegia, &c. Apol. p. 162.

byters as colleagues, and thinks that the fathers made use of some other term. Salmasius also admits the distinction of orders in that age, and, of course, a distinction of colleges."

4. It being then the invariable language of the third century to call Bishops, and none but Bishops, colleagues, (our ablest opponents being judges) the suspicion of Chamier seems to be well founded. For it is a rule of criticism, that when a term does not suit the language of the age in which it is used, it cannot be deemed authentic. It must therefore be supposed, that if the canon, in its present state, be sincere, the term 'colleague' must be interpreted in a low, qualified sense, meaning no more than fellow Presbyters, or fellow Ministers; for if we take it strictly, we shall contradict matter of fact, as several of the most learned Presbyterians arc candid enough to acknowledge. You quote another canon from the same Council, requiring the Bishop to "reside in a small house near the church in which he officiates "-to have "plain, and even coarse, household furniture "—and that "he should give himself perpetually to reading, praying, and preaching." And what do you infer from this? Is it that he is not a diocesan, if his house should happen to be at a distance from his Cathedral? Or that he cannot be a Bishop of that kind, if he should be "clothed in purple and fine Jinen, and fare sumptuously every day?" You really, Sir, must be in great want of evidence, or you would not detain your readers with such impertinent quotations.

Next, you give us two long quotations from the Apostolical Constitutions; and you tell me that I am bound on my own principles to admit them. Pray, Sir, what do you know of my opinion in respect to that compilation? Have I ever told you? Never. All that I said about them is in my fifth letter. The following are my words-" As to the Apostolical Constitutions, I shall not concern myself about them; because they were not published till after the time, when all acknowledge, that diocesan episcopacy prevailed." Now, Sir, how have you discovered my opinion of them from this?

When you, Sir, can convince any man of common sense, that the Apostolical Constitutions, which were compiled long after diocesan episcopacy was universally the government of the Church, contain any thing favourable to parity, then it will be time enough to notice the quotations you have made, and the forced, inconsistent gloss, you have given them. When you can point out, how the Bishop of Jerusalem could possibly be personally acquainted with all the poor among the myriads who composed his flock, or the Bishop of Rome with the numberless multitudes in that diocese in the third century; or how a Bishop's having a Deacon to attend him in his own particular church, is a proof of his having but one congregation, you shall have a particular answer. Till then, I pray you to hold me

b Vindication of the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, p. 251.

excused from replying to things that carry absurdity on the face of them.

Next you inform us, that the sixth general Council of Constantinople acknowledged the "Scripture Deacons to be no other than overseers of the poor; and that this was the opinion of the ancient fathers." Either you are incorrect in wording this canon, or Du Pin is. Instead of overseers of the poor, he quotes the canon as saying Ministers of common tables. This is precisely what Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Taylor, maintain. They maintain, that the ordination of the seven was not an ordination to the diaconate, but to the special purpose of managing the "community of goods," which continued but a short time; and that the institution of Deacons took place some time after. But whether this opinion be correct or not, I have observed that, the additional powers of preaching and baptizing in certain cases, given to Deacons by ecclesiastical authority, (supposing it to rest solely on that ground,) is a very different thing from wresting out of the hands of the Presbyters some of their most valuable rights, and appropriating them to a higher order of ecclesiastics. If this could have been done at all, it must have been after great struggles, and with numerous testimonies from the writers of the age in which it happened.

You give us another quotation from the Council of Aix la Chapelle, held about the year 816. They, you say, 'in the most unequivocal terms, owned the original identity of Bishops and Presbyters, and expressly declared that "the ordination of the Clergy was reserved to the High Priest only for the maintenance of his dignity.""

You should have told us, Sir, from whose Collection of Canons you took the above. Whether from that of Binius, or of Father Labbe & Cossortius, or from the abridgment of Father Longus a Conolano. You should also have given us the original, that I might see with my own eyes the express words of the canon. There is no such thing as answering quotations made in this loose and inaccurate manner.

But let the canon stand as you have given it. My answer is, that the identity of names proves nothing. We admit it without hesitation. We also admit, that one end for which "the ordination of the clergy was reserved to the High Priest," is, among others, "the maintenance of his dignity," or superiority over the clergy; for without this, his superiority would be no great matter. This is the principal distinction between a Bishop and a Presbyter.

I cannot find this canon in Du Pin.

You have, after this quotation, several miscellaneous observations, which are only a repetition of what you had said in your first work, and which I think were so amply answered in several of my letters, that it does not appear to me necessary to go over that ground again. Yet, to satisfy those who will not take the trouble of looking over my pages, I will notice in my next letter a few things that you have said.

LETTER VII.

REV. SIR:

1. You assert that several early writers of the first three centuries bear testimony, that the 'Bishops were alone considered as authorized to administer baptism and the Lord's supper.' That from Ignatius, Tertullian, and Cyprian, we learn that Christians, in those days, received the eucharist from no hands but those of the Bishop; and that baptism was considered as his appropriate work, and never to be administered by any other hands, unless in cases of necessity.'

Now, Sir, in direct opposition to this, I assert that you have not produced, that you cannot produce, a single testimony from the above named fathers, to prove that none but the Bishops administered the communion. They all assert, indeed, that Presbyters and Deacons derive their authority from Bishops to minister in holy things-that the Bishops have the supreme power of the keys, and that every thing relating to the public worship is under their control; but never that they were the sole ministers of the sacraments. Let our readers attend to what I have said in my first volume on this point, and they will see that I have proved your assertion to be totally groundless, and the thing itself absolutely impracticable. How could the myriads in Jerusalem receive, three times a week, or oftener, the communion from the hands of the Bishop alone? It is utterly impossible. All who professed Christianity, at that time, were communicants; and to suppose that all the men and women out of forty or fifty thousand souls received the communion from the Bishop alone, is preposterous. Besides, this would be making the Presbyters and Deacons mere cyphers, and not the Bishop's assistants, as all the ancients say they were.

You next quote the thirtieth canon of the council of Agatha. According to your account, the canon says, "It shall not be lawful for a Presbyter in the church to pronounce the benediction on the people, or to bless a penitent." Du Pin gives the canon thus: "The same order shall be observed in divine service every where, that, after the ancients, the Bishops or Priests shall say the collects, that the hymns shall be sung evening and morning, that at the end of matins and vespers some short chapter shall be read out of the Psalms, and that the people, being assembled for prayer at night, shall be dismissed with the Bishop's blessing." This it seems is a proof that the Bishop was the pastor of a single church. A Bishop's blessing the people in the sixth century is a proof of congregational episcopacy! You must excuse

e Eccles. Hist. Vol. III. p. 112.