Still you go on with frivolous objections. 'It appears,' you say, 'after all that has been said to the contrary, that the num ber of Bishops found, in early times, in small districts of country, precludes the idea of their having been any other than parish ministers.'

You have produced but one instance in the first three centuries of a numerous council of Bishops, and this you have founded on a grossly mistranslated passage in Eusebius. And the councils of the fourth and fifth centuries were held after episcopacy had been established, in the opinion of all your writers, and by your own acknowledgement; so that it is ridiculous to quote such instances. Yet I have given a particular answer to each case, and have shown that they are all groundless, and without so much as the semblance of fact.

The next particular of your summary is, 'That even after a kind of prelacy arose, the Bishops were still, for the most part, only pastors of single congregations; and that there was little if any other difference between them and their Presbyters than that which now subsists between pastors and their assistants in Presbyterian Churches, and Rectors and their Curates in Epis. copal Churches.'

What an astonishing instance of bold assertion! You say, a kind of prelacy took place in the third century. In that age, I have proved by numerous qnotations, clear, pointed, and decisive, that a Bishop presided over a plurality of Presbyters and congregations; that he was raised to the "top of the priesthood" by a new ordination; that he had the supreme power of the keys; that the Bishops formed a college distinct from, and superior to that of the Presbyters: and that this regimen was believed by all the writers of that age to be of divine institution. Have you said a syllable to these quotations? Not one. Nothing, but that you will not follow me through my tedious detail. But, Sir, it was not left to you to follow me or not; you were bound to do it, or to give up the point. I proved, by the most complete evidence that was ever given to any matter of fact; I proved it too by the best writers that ever took up the pen in favour of presbyterian parity, that your notion of a kind of prelacy is a mere whim. No, Sir, you did not decline the discussion because you thought my proofs were not sufficiently clear and decisive; but, I will be bold to say, because you knew yourself unable to invalidate them; because you saw, that you would plunge yourself into difficulties perplexing and insuperable. Yet you have not the manliness to retract. Non persuadebis etiamsi persuaseris, may, on this occasion, be pertinently applied to you.

You still go on: 'It appears from Jerome, that the first approach towards prelacy was the standing moderatorship of one of the Presbyters; that this began in the Church of Alex

f["You shall not persuade me, even though you do persuade "-put in the mouth of a confuted disputant.]

1

andria very early; soon, if not immediately after the days of Mark the Evangelist; and this was the only kind of clerical imparity, that existed in that Church until the middle of the third century, when it gave place to some higher encroachments of ecclesiastical ambition.'

Jerome does not say one word about a standing moderatorship. He says, From the time of Mark till the middle of the third century, the Presbyters elected their Bishop ;" but then, as we learn from history, a change took place in the mode of election. You misrepresent Jerome by using the words soon and immediately after, instead of from, which necessarily implies, that when St. Mark died the Presbyters elected a Bishop. And this Jerome does to show the Roman Deacons, who thought themselves equal to Presbyters, that they were inferior to them; as the Presbyters alone, without the concurrence of the Deacons, elected their Bishop. This is precisely the point Jerome had in view; and it shows decisively that diocesan episcopacy is of apostolic institution, for Mark unquestionably presided over the Church of Alexandria by apostolic appointment. But your representation of the Bishop's office, considering it as nothing more than a standing presidency, has no warrant from the words of Jerome. A standing presidency indeed it was; but just such a one as all the succeeding Bishops held, down to the time of Eusebius, who does not give the least hint of any change in the office, but considers the whole succession as founded on apostolic institution. What shall we say then to your bold assertion, that 'the standing moderatorship was the only kind of clerical imparity that existed in that Church until the middle of the third century, when it gave place to some higher encroachments of ecclesiastical ambition ? This is nothing but your own imagination. There is not a lisp of it in Jerome. He says, or, at least, his words imply it, that the mode of electing a Bishop was altered in the third century; but not that the powers of the office were increased by clerical ambition. This whole matter, then, you have misrepresented most grossly.

The next particular of your summary is in relation to Deacons. 'It appears,' you say, 'from several unexceptionable testimonies, that Deacons, in the primitive Church, were not an order of clergy at all; that they were only entrusted with the care of the poor, and employed to assist in the administration of the LORD's Supper-and that their gradually coming to be considered as a third order of the clergy, was, like the claims of the prelates, an innovation.'

It appears undeniably from the epistles of Ignatius, that Deacons were in his day, (and if in his day, in the apostolic age) an inferior order of the clergy. He says expressly, that they are not the ministers of meats and drinks, but of the Church of GOD-ministers of the mysteries of CHRIST; and he gives them a degree of presidency over the people. 66 Study to do all things in divine concord; your Bishop presiding in the

place of GOD, and the Presbyters in the place of the Apostolical senate, and the Deacons most dear to me, as those to whom is committed the ministry of JESUS CHRIST." And in many

other places, he exhorts the people to respect them as the ministers of JESUS CHRIST. Tertullian also, in the same age, Cyprian and others in the third century, Jerome and others in the fourth, with several provincial and general councils, considered them in the same light. The care of the poor was but a part of their office; they attended at the altar, delivered the cup to the cominunicants, presented their offerings to the Bishop, and by his authority alone, without the concurrence of Presbyters, were ordained to read in the Church, to preach, and to baptize, when no Priest was present. All this I learn from the primitive writers.

Further, you say 'It appears from the declaration of several fathers, besides Jerome,' (Jerome is entirely out of the question) 'that some change in the powers and prerogatives of Bishops did actually take place within the first three centuries; and that several things were appropriated to Bishops in the third and fourth centuries, which those writers assert were not appropri· "ated to them in the apostolic age.'

It does not appear from a single writer of the first three centuries, that any change took place in the powers and prerogatives of Bishops. They unanimously represent the Bishop as presiding over a plurality of Presbyters and congregations; as the fountain of ecclesiastical authority; as the supreme dispenser of the sacraments; as the principle of unity to all the clergy and laity within his district; as holding the rod of apostolical discipline; as succeeding in the Church to the Apostolical supremacy; as, in short, the vicegerent of CHRIST, to whom all were subject in spiritual matters; and this superiority of power and jurisdiction they founded on divine authority. This is the language of the writers of the first three centuries; and stronger language in favour of diocesan episcopacy we do not desire, we cannot possibly have.

Under this head you have a long note, relating to Hilary's saying, "In Egypt, even at this day, the Presbyters ordain (consignant) in the Bishop's absence." On this passage you have two remarks. The first is, that several eminent Episcopal divines, and, among others, Bishop Forbes, have understood Hilary as I do, to be speaking here of ordination.' Let this be exactly as you say, to what does it amount? Just this much-they thought so. But I might oppose to them full as eminent Episcopal divines. And what would the conclusion be? Precisely nothing. But it is of some consequence to us that your own great writers, Blondel and Salmasius, as quoted by Dr. Hammond, do not pretend to determine whether consignant' is applicable to confirmation, to ordination, or to the benediction of penitents. Nay, Salmasius thinks, as Bishop Taylor also does, that' consignant' in Hilary should be interpreted by VOL. I.-7

'consecrant' in St. Austin, as this father says, "In Alexandria, et per totum Egyptum, si desit Episcopus, consecrat Presbyter" "In Alexandria, and through all Egypt, if the Bishop be absent, a Presbyter consecrates," that is, the eucharist. This is. much more probable at any rate, you can derive no support from it.

Your second remark on this passage is, that: whatever religious rite it is that Hilary refers to, it is something which the Bishops, in his day, generally claimed as their prerogative; but which had not been always appropriated to them; and which, even in his time, in the Bishop's absence, the Presbyters consid ered themselves as empowered to perform. This is sufficient for my purpose.'

This is curious reasoning! In the Bishop's absence, the Presbyter might consecrate the Eucharist; therefore, the Bishop was not superior to the Presbyter. In this diocese, when the Bishop is absent, the oldest Presbyter present consecrates the Eucharist; therefore, a Bishop and Presbyter are considered by us as of the same order. Charity is certainly a very good thing; but I cannot carry it so far as to destroy common sense. I cannot be persuaded that you are serious when you talk at this rate.

Nay, Sir, were I even to allow that 'consignant' means ordination, it would be of no manner of service to you. For as Ambrose says, (if this be the meaning of the word)" that Presbyters ordain at Alexandria in the absence of the Bishop," and mentions this as an instance in proof of his assertion, that the order of the Church was not in his day as in the time of St. Paul, it follows, that ordination by Presbyters at Alexandria, when the Bishop was absent, was a novelty, and contrary to apostolic practice; and therefore, a most wretched support to Presbyterian ordination. This observation, which, in my judgment, is perfectly conclusive, was made in my second letter; but you have thought proper not to bring it into view again.

The conclusion of your summary is as follows: 'It appears, from all that has been said, that the writings of the fathers, instead of speaking 'decisively,' and 'unanimously' in favour of prelacy, as some of our high-toned Episcopalian brethren assert, do not produce a single testimony, within the prescribed limits, which gives the least countenance to the prelatical claim.'

I have proved, with a profusion of evidence from the writers of the third century, that they decisively and unanimously place the Bishop at "the top of the priesthood"—that he was the supreme dispenser of the sacraments-that he had a distinct ordination when placed over the Presbyters-that he was the fountain of authority to both Presbyters and Deacons; and that the Bishops, as colleagues, formed a distinct college. These points you have not so much as attempted to disprove; and I defy you, by every effort you can make, to invalidate a single evidence I have produced. I have also shown, that several of your ablest writers acknowledge, that Bishops, as a distinct order,

were evidently established in the Church as early as the middle of the second century, and that some of them carry it up to the very verge of the apostolic age. I have also shown, from several writers of the second century, that diocesan episcopacy was the government of the Church, and that the Bishops held a supremacy over all orders. And, lastly, I have shown that Ignatius, who spent almost the whole of his life in the first century, makes the Bishop the supreme governor of the Church, the fountain of ecclesiastical authority, the vicegerent of CHRIST, the principle of unity, and the person to whom the SAVIOUR would, in an especial manner, look for soundness in doctrine, and strictness in discipline. And, lastly, I have shown that this holy martyr declares this kind of government, and not parity, to have been universally diffused, and to have been of apostolic and divine institution.

And now the inquiry is brought fairly and fully to a conclusion; and I think I may, with great confidence, sum up the whole, as I did in my ninth letter, in the words of Bishop Hoadly "We have as universal, and as unanimous a testimony of all writers and historians, from the Apostles' days, as could reasonably be expected or desired. Every one who speaks of the government of the Church in any place, witnessing that episcopacy was the settled form; and every one who hath occasion to speak of the original of it, tracing it up to the Apostles' days, and fixing it upon their decree; and what is very remarkable, no one contradicting this, either of the friends or enemies of Christianity, either of the orthodox or heretical, through those ages, in which only such assertions concerning this matter of fact could well be disproved. From which testimonies I cannot but think it highly reasonable to infer, that episcopacy was of apostolical institution."

We have now, Sir, brought the inquiry, as to the fathers, to a close; and I am persuaded that no impartial mind can resist their united testimony. Let us next inquire what is the weight of this evidence in favour of diocesan episcopacy. With this I shall begin my next letter.

REV. SIR:

LETTER VIII.

WE are now to inquire, of what weight the testimony of the fathers is, in this dispute. I assert, that it is of immense weight. For if we have brought prelacy up to the apostolic age, at which time, too, one of the Apostles, St. John, was still living, can we suppose that this universal prevalence of episcopacy could have had any other source than apostolic authority? Had