Imágenes de páginas


Dr. Miller's Continuation of Letters strikingly destitute of propriety

and civility-instanced in several particulars. Dr. Miller's charge that
Dr. Bowden had forgotten his promise in referring to authors, proved
to be groundless. Dr. Miller makes a great outcry against Dr. Bowden
for beginning his proofs with the Fathers of the fourth century-this
arrangement shown to be perfectly natural and proper-Dr. Miller
declaims, instead of reasoning-asserts, without proving. He charges
Dr. Bowden of being 'afraid to encounter Scripture alone'--shown
not to have even a shadow to support it.— The ancients the best
judges of the primitive government of the Christian Church-Dr.
Miller totally misrepresents Dr. Bowden with respect to Ruling
Elders—the proof given-Dr. Miller wholly inexcusable in this par-


Dr. Miller is very unfortunate in his assertion, that Dr. Bowden 'rushes

to the conclusion, that different orders of the clergy were intended by
a distinct enumeration'—Dr. Bowden relies on things, not on names

-on the powers exercised, not on titlesThe heathen noticed the pre-eminence of the Bishops, long before the empire became Christian

-Dr. Miller required four proofs of Episcopal pre-eminence—they were given in great abundance-he does not notice this in his second work, but repeats the demand—a most disingenuous way of proceeding—the demand is, however, complied with—Dr. Miller denies that the ancients assert the apostolical institution of prelacy-proved by evidence irresistible—but if they did, he says, it would have no weight with him—this assertion, if correct, would take the fathers from us as witnesses to the canon of Scripture, and to the Lord's day.


LETTER III. Dr. Miller derives no strength to his argument from the circumstance

that the wine in the LORD's Supper was mixed with water-the fact is certain-no one denies it. The ancients believed that it was an apostolic usage, and there is sufficient evidence that it was—is used by the Scotch Episcopal Church-The practice of administering the communion to infants was very partial; therefore it wants universality, one of the marks an apostolic usage—it cannot be traced to the apostolic age, and therefore it wants antiquity-consequently it must be rejected from the list of apostolic usages-Irenæus' mistake about the age of Christ, and the dispute about the time of keeping Easter, do not militate in the least against the testimony of the fathers to the divine origin of episcopacy-no reason can be assigned why. Presbyterians at this time should be better able than the ancients to determine what the government of the primitive

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


The Bishops proved to be not the only ministers of the sacraments-

To quote the thirtieth canon of the Council of Agatha is ridiculous-
Presbyters never called Bishops after the apostolic age-Bishops
the proper successors of the Apostles, according to the ancients
The presence of a Bishop in every worshipping assembly utterly in-
consistent with matter of fact—The Bishop could not attend to every
poor person within his charge—nor celebrate all the marriages, nor
visit all the sick, nor instruct all the children--Jerome grossly mis-


The quotations from the Gesta and from Hilary flat contradictions

Augustine bears no testimony to Ruling Elders-nor Cyprian-No

mention of Lay Elders by the commentators or historians of antiquity

- The institution cannot be supported by 'antiquity, universality, and

general consent–Eight important points of difference between the
Seniores Ecclesiæ and Lay Elders-No distinction in the apostolic
constitutions between Ruling and preaching Elders—Bishop Taylor
a decided opposer of Ruling Elders—Not a shadow in Ignatius for
them-Archbishop Whitgift rejects Scripture warrant for Ruling
Elders-Guise is against the Elders of his own Church-Jerome,
Eusebius, Tertullian, and Irenæus, give a list of Bishops up to the
time of the Apostles, and give no hint that congregational episcopacy
prevailed in the apostolic age, and diocesan in any subsequent age-
No such change could have taken place in the second and third cen-
taries, proved by several conclusive arguments—The prelatical cha-
racter of Timothy and Titus established both from Scripture and the
fathers-Dr. Mason admits their pre-eminence, but ascribes it to their
character as Evangelists—The office of an Evangelist not extraordi-
nary_That there were Elders at Ephesus and Crete before Timothy
and Titus were sent to those places, proved from Scripture-The
Church of Ephesus completely organized even upon presbyterian
principles,Dr. Miller is in the region of fancy upon this point, No
comparison can be instituted between the case of Timothy and that
of Presbyterian Missionaries- Dr. Miller fails here in totoJerome,
Eusebius, and the Council of Ephesus, bear testimony to the prelatical
character of Timothy-Calvin's opinion of the text, with the laying

on of the hands of the Presbytery-Presbyterians who maintain the

apostolic institution of Lay Elders, strikingly inconsistent in their

reasoning, and in their manner of ordaining.



The texts relating to the seven Angels reviewed— The Presbytery

cannot be represented by the Angel of the Church-A Star is never

used in the sacred writings as a symbol of a plurality of ministers-

Stars cannot represent Lay Elders, as they do not preach the word :

consequently cannot be the representative of the Presbytery on Dr.

Miller's principles, The Angel cannot be the Moderator of the Pres-

bytery, because their respective relations are totally different- A Star

is a proper symbol of an individual, when he is not the sole dispenser

of light-proved from sacred and profane history—The Angels are

addressed in the singular number— The Presbyterians cannot agree

among themselves what sense to give to the Stars and to the Angels

Proof from fact that diocesan Bishops were settled in the seven

Churches of Asia Minor, when the Revelations were written-Blon-

del not misrepresented by Dr. Bowden—The case of St. James,

Bishop of Jerusalem, reviewed-Calvin quoted correctly--proved that

he was a friend to prelacy--No sense given to Calvin's words which

do not belong to them— The æra of Popery, according to Calvin, was

the seventh century, in the time of Phocas—The superior jurisdiction

of the Apostles was not founded on their extraordinary gifts, but on

their commission-Dr. Miller's assertion that the Christian Church

was formed on the model of the Jewish Synagogue, proved to be




Dr. Miller's observations on the opinions of the Reformers, reviewed,

and shown to be nugatory-The book entitled the Erudition of a

Christian Man, in favour of prelacy—The notion which Dr, Miller

says Presbyterians entertain, that a man is a Bishop when he has a

pastoral charge, and but a Presbyter when he has not, quite new in

ecclesiastical history-The opinions of the Reformers individually

examined, and proved to be in favour of prelacy–The Ordinal affords

a decisive and unanswerable proof, that the Reformers believed pre-

lacy to be of divine origin.



The Waldenses episcopal

, proved by abundant evidence—The case of

Morrison put on its proper ground The Act passed in the thirteenth

year of Elizabeth, reviewed - The Church of Scotland settled on the

ground of imparity, placed beyond a doubt-Sufficient evidence that

Luther preferred episcopacy to parity-Melancthon and Bucer also

preferred it-Calvin's ordination and character reconsidered— The

Church of England not Calvinistic in her doctrines—The Churches

of Sweden and Denmark episcopal according to Mosheim and his

translator Maclaine.



Episcopacy was not introduced gradually after the apostolic age- The

Church in the third century was not corrupt; but if it was, it affords

no argument against episcopacy–The rise of Metropolitans in the

second century presents no parallel to the origin of episcopacy—The

question when Christianity was introduced into Scotland, considered

--proved not to have been till the fifth century,


[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »