Asia. He had at one time preached in the Jewish synagogue at Ephesus "for the space of three months;" and, "when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. So that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul" (in the language of Demetrius) had "persuaded and turned away much people 1."

It is probable, therefore, that by the "Church of Ephesus" was meant, not only the Christians in that city, but those also in the adjacent country; a great number of whom must have been converted to the truth during this long residence of the Apostle. If this was the meaning of the term used by St. John, the "angel of the Church of Ephesus," must have been a minister presiding over a considerable district. But omitting this reasonable supposition, it is clear, that the number of Christians residing in the city of Ephesus was so great, as to require the care of several presbyters. For, when St. Paul passed by this city in his way from Greece to Jerusalem, he summoned these presbyters to meet him at Miletus. "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the presbyters of the Church "."

It is certain, therefore, by the term "angel of the Church of Ephesus," could not be meant the sole presbyter, or minister of the congregation of Christians at Ephesus.

'The angel of the Church must, of consequence, have been the superintendent presiding over the presbyters, as well as over the flock.

'This establishment was not new. It had subsisted for some time in the Church of Ephesus, as I have already shown, when

1 Acts xix. 8-10, 26.

2 Acts xx. 17.

describing from the Scriptures the authority which St. Paul had delegated to Timothy. He had been left by the Apostle at Ephesus, to superintend the teaching and the conduct of the presbyters in that part; and to ordain others, as the state of the Church might require.

The Epistle of St. John to the Church of Ephesus shows, that the same authority which St. Paul had delegated to Timothy, was possessed by the angel of the Church who resided at Ephesus when the Apocalypse was written.

When St. Paul appointed Timothy and Titus to be superintendents, or bishops, over other presbyters, he gave them minute directions for the regulation of their conduct in that important office. It was not necessary that such directions should be given to the angels of the seven Churches in Asia, as they were already settled officers in the Christian Church, and were in the actual exercise of those powers which St. Paul committed to Timothy and Titus. We must not, therefore, expect to find the duties of a superintendent amply displayed in these short epistles to the angels of the seven Churches, as this had been already executed in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. St. John was led to mention the duties of the office only incidentally, as the persons who now held it required praise or reproof, according to their respective conduct in the execution of that office. But the incidental mention of the peculiar functions of the office, affords as clear a proof that it was held by the persons addressed, as is afforded by the more minute description contained in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.

'Nothing can prove more clearly that the angel of the Church of Ephesus was the superintendent of other ministers, than the notice which is taken of his authority to try the pretensions of those who laid a claim to the highest office in the Christian

1 Revelations ii. 2.

Church. "Thou hast tried them which say they are Apostles, and are not; and hast found them liars 1." The angel of this Church had exercised his superintending authority with zeal and discretion, and now receives the approbation of his conduct from the great Head of the Church, through the hands of the Apostle.

'The same authority is recognised with respect to the angel of the Church at Thyatira, but in a way of reproof, instead of commendation. For, after the Apostle had expressed our Lord's approbation of his faith and patience, &c. it is added, "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess, to teach," &c. Now it could not have been the subject of blame in the angel of the Church in Thyatira, that he suffered this pretended prophetess to exercise her talents among the Christians in that city, or district, unless he had possessed the authority of examining the pretensions of those who laid claim to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, and of silencing improper teachers; which, as hath been already shown, were the functions of a superintendent; that is, of a minister in the Christian Church, who, ever since the apostolic age, has received the title of bishop.

2

From these passages of Scripture I am convinced, that Diocesan Episcopacy was established by Divine authority in the Christian Churches in Asia, before the death of the Apostle John; and I can find no reason from Scripture to think that the government of the Churches in Asia differed from that of other Christian Churches. They were all under the care of the same

2 By diocesan episcopacy, I mean the government of the Church by superintendents or bishops, each presiding over his own district, though subject to a general synod of bishops and presbyters. Acts xv. 6; xvi. 4.'

Q

persons'; matters of great concern, respecting them universally, were determined by a synod of the Apostles and presbyters at Jerusalem2; and the decrees made for the government of the churches were distributed by Paul and Silas, as they went about preaching the Gospel 3.

'My duty to the great Head of the Church compels me to respect that authority which appears to me so clearly to have been established by his direction; and I pray God, that this authority may always be exercised for the benefit of his "Church, which he hath purchased with his own blood;" that it may be presented to him at length, "a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but holy and without blemish *.'”

4

No. VI.

On the validity of the Ordination of the Anglican Church.

Analysis of Le Courayer's Defence.

In order to understand Le Courayer's book, the reader must refer to the short statement of the dispute from Archbishop Bramhall, given above, which will show why it was necessary to prove the points enumerated below. I need only add generally, that there were two commissions issued for Parker's consecration, one dated September 9, 1559, not acted on, the other dated Dec. 6, following. The first was directed to six bishops, of whom three refused to act. The second to seven bishops, of whom

1 "That which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches." 2 Cor. xi. 28.'

2 Acts xv. 6.'

3" And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the Apostles and presbyters which were at Jerusalem." Acts xvi. 4.'

four, viz. Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgskins, consecrated Parker.

(1.) He undertakes to shew the authenticity of the registers in

which Parker's consecration is registered.

(2.) He exposes the Nag's-head story.

(3.) He shews that the ordination at Lambeth is as authentic as an historical fact can be.

(4.) He examines the objections.

(5.) He examines Barlow's case.

(6.) He examines the case of Scory, and the other bishops. (7.) From the fact he comes to the right, and examines what concerns the forms.

(8.) He enquires into the matter of lay authority.

As preliminary matter, it may be well to notice (1.) that many Romanists have allowed the validity of English ordination.See, for example, Cudsemius de Desp. Calv. Causæ, c. xviii. p. 468. Valesius de Min. Aug. p. 14. Arnaud MS. Lett. of Feb. 4, 1685. Snellart's MS. Lett. March 2, 1685, and even Bossuet.

(2.) It is curious that they who attacked the English ordinations did so inconsistently.

First, they alleged that King Edward's ritual for ordinations was bad. Next, they said that bishops consecrated by men who were separate from the Church, and had no authority or jurisdiction, were no bishops, confounding the difference between the powers of ordination and of jurisdiction. Then marriage, they said in their ignorance, made the consecration of bishops void. Ashamed of all these stories, they next said that the new bishops had not been consecrated at all by imposition of hands. Finally, they brought up the Nag's-head story. This story was first told by a Jesuit called Sacro Bosco, or Holywood, in 1604, forty-five years after Parker's consecration! Kellison, a Romanist